Page 141 of 475 FirstFirst ... 4191131137138139140141142143144145151191241 ... LastLast
Results 2,101 to 2,115 of 7113
  1. #2101
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,693

    Default



    "Charging the president with a crime is something we could not consider."

    So now Congress should be given access to all relevant information -- including the unredacted report -- so that they can do their job and impeach if necessary.

    That said, we know most Republicans will fight against that to the end because they put loyalty to party above loyalty to country.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 05-29-2019 at 10:08 AM.

  2. #2102
    Ultimate Member Gray Lensman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    10,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    And yet, you somehow see fit not to apply the same logic to Democrats with regards to issues like immigration ("open borders") where Democrats have routinely proposed legislation for strengthening borders and presided over significant decreases in illegal immigration -- where it's apparently not "more important to look at what they actually do" but to judge them by an article of clothing someone once wore.

    Mets, you routinely support a hypocritical party with hypocritical arguments -- do you really think people here are so ignorant that we can't see that?

    Purely rhetorical question since the answer is obvious.

    -----
    "McConnell Would Fill Potential Supreme Court Vacancy In 2020, Reversal Of 2016 Stance"

    "In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., refused to hold a hearing on President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, saying that it was an election year and that the American people "deserved a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice."

    That was then.

    Speaking to an audience in Kentucky on Monday, McConnell said should a vacancy occur on the court in 2020, another presidential election year, he would allow a vote.

    He was asked at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon: "Should a Supreme Court justice die next year, what will your position be on filling that spot?"

    McConnell responded with a grin, "Oh, we'd fill it."

    https://www.npr.org/2019/05/29/72784...sal-of-2016-st
    I have never seen anyone as proud of his hypocrisy as the Mitchocrite.
    "Theory: The Phoenix doesn't corrupt the characters, it corrupts the authors." Gambit, King of Thieves

  3. #2103
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    18,422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post


    "Charging the president with a crime is something we could not consider."

    So now Congress should be given access to all relevant information -- including the unredacted report -- so that they can do their job and impeach if necessary.

    That said, we know most Republicans will fight against that to the end because they put loyalty to party above loyalty to country.
    Maybe I read too much between the lines, or read it altogether wrong, but I got the feeling Mueller didn't want the responsibility (or the blame) for bringing the hammer down on a sitting president, even one as blatantly corrupt as Trump for whom there had been evidence against. So Mueller made like Pontius Pilate, washed his hands of the whole stinking mess and dropped it in the collective lap of Congress, saying in effect, "Here you go, boys. Finish what I started". Problem is, the cowardly Republicans in the Senate weren't about to throw Trump under the impeachment bus, and everyone, INCLUDING Mueller knew it too. So now, we're down to the last gasp, voting Trump out next year, and even that is far from a certainty.
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

  4. #2104
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    654

    Default

    The one takeaway from Muller's little conference that he may not have wanted. Is that seeing the words come out of his mouth and hearing them actually does have impact and matter. That's exactly why Congress wants his testimony. Even though he didn't say anything new here. Seeing him flat out say that we would have completely cleared the president if that was our finding. It clearly was not our finding so we didn't. We knew that, but him emphasizing it has impact. And can wake people up who aren't about to read a 400 page report and just go off trump tweets that it completely exonerated him.

  5. #2105
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,788

    Default

    If I compile all the facts from people who claim to know what they are talking about, here is what 2020 is going to look like:

    -Trump wins in a landslide;
    -Trump loses in a crushing defeat;
    -Joe Biden has no chance of beating Trump;
    -Joe Biden is the only dem with a chance of beating Trump;
    -Bernie is the only dem with a chance of beating Trump;
    -Because of stigma against socialism, Bernie has no chance of beating Trump;
    -Trying to impeach Trump will help secure a democratic win when everything is out in the open;
    -Trying to impeach Trump will help secure a Trump landslide win;
    -Polls all indicate Bernie would win;
    -Polls all indicate Biden would win;
    -All polls indicating Bernie would win are biased and skewed;
    -All polls indicating Biden would win are biased and skewed;
    -We should pay attention to polls;
    -We should not pay attention to polls;
    -2016's swing states are gonna turn blue as hell
    -2016's swing states and every state except CA and NY are going to rurn red as hell

    Probably some others. Everything is shaping up nicely. We all know everything and it is all pre-determined.

  6. #2106
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,788

    Default

    Also, as expected even prior to Mueller opening his mouth this morning to pretty much say nothing, the right are taking their 20th victory lap.

    The fact that some people are still clinging to this impeachment thing as if it should even be attempted. Jeez.

    The dude needs to be voted out. Anything else is just going to tear things further and further down. Not that we can go back up from where we are, but you know.

    I really need to stop paying attention to the news. It doesn't, like, help things to know what's going on. It just pisses you off. No good comes from it.

  7. #2107
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    16,688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZombieHavoc View Post
    Wait, wait, wait. You think I'm a Trump supporter?
    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    Shhhhh whenever anybody disagrees with whatever the fashionable take in this thread is you get called a Trump supporter/Republican.

    Anyways I called the Mueller report from the jump. It would be messy and inconclusive enough for nothing to result from it and Trump had enough smart people protecting him from anything flagrant
    What's in blue was pretty good for a chuckle.

  8. #2108
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZombieHavoc View Post
    Also, as expected even prior to Mueller opening his mouth this morning to pretty much say nothing, the right are taking their 20th victory lap.

    The fact that some people are still clinging to this impeachment thing as if it should even be attempted. Jeez.

    The dude needs to be voted out. Anything else is just going to tear things further and further down. Not that we can go back up from where we are, but you know.

    I really need to stop paying attention to the news. It doesn't, like, help things to know what's going on. It just pisses you off. No good comes from it.
    We don't have a choice when you are reporting the blow by blow in the most pessimistic way possible.

  9. #2109
    Horrific Experiment JCAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Lensman View Post
    I have never seen anyone as proud of his hypocrisy as the Mitchocrite.
    It's not hypocrisy, McConnell's position has always been that only a Republican could fill a Supreme Court seat. It Hillary had won, that seat would have stayed empty until a Republican was in the White House. Anyone who tells you that the Supreme Court debacle was ever anything other than a partisan power grab is either a fool or a liar.

  10. #2110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shooshoomanjoe View Post
    Not really. The only thing Avenatti did was expose more of trump's Christian values.
    For the most part elected Democrats didn't embarrass themselves by getting on the Avenatti bandwagon. The main exception was Democrats who referred to the gang rape allegations against Kavanaugh as credible.

    The media did get kinda nuts in slobbering over Avenatti, though.

    https://twitter.com/Krasssentein/sta...93942723620871

    Quote Originally Posted by ZombieHavoc View Post
    The most obnoxious kick my Cult of Shapiro ex-friend got on was just hardcore railing about how white priveledge doesn't exist. He would say it's not white priviledge, it's American priviledge--every one has the same oppurtunity as everyone else because it's America. All while posting condecending shit about people who are in debt. He is not in any debt, because his parents paid for his college, after which he received a well paying job.

    It always seems those who go hardest against the idea of white priviledge are the ones who are the most priviledged.

    Ugh, that dude sucks. I get so annoyed when I think of the 20+ years I wasted in friendship with him.
    Technically, the point on American privilege isn't a white supremacist one, since it doesn't suggest there should be efforts to keep minorities down.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZombieHavoc View Post
    Who knows. I think Ben Shapiro, as a person, is bad. I don't think he is trying to turn people into full on nazis. That's about as much of a compliment as I'm willing to pay him.
    Fair enough, but these are different arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by kidfresh512 View Post
    Listening to this Robert Muller press conference. All he did was reiterate that his team would have said if they came to the conclusion that trump and the administration was clean. They DID NOT make that conclusion. And stating again that he feels they were bound by DOJ regulations that he couldn't charge the president with anything while in office if he wanted too.

    Basically saying he left it up to Congress and their processes. And he wont say another word outside the report even if subpoena to testify. He feels like its all in the report there is nothing outside the report to discuss.
    He did suggest that there haven't been any serious redactions, so that is useful to know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Farealmer View Post
    The problem is most of those laws were made in a time when lawmakers were hostile or apathetic to the needs of marginalized groups.
    Sure. And the solution would be to make new laws to take this into account.

    Quote Originally Posted by Farealmer View Post
    Also I asked the same person this question I asked the immigration question you asked earlier in the thread. They said this.
    Conservative view on the law seems to fall into two categories: originalism and textualism. Originalism looks at the original intent. Textualism is more about what the law specifically says.

    The fact that left-wing justices are making originalist arguments isn't necessarily an indication that they're on board with the idea, but that they see it as a way to persuade their colleagues. It shows that originalism has gone mainstream.

  11. #2111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZombieHavoc View Post
    Uh, yeah, obviously. 2016 is proof that we on the left can't get our shit together, even it means destroying the country via the Supreme Court for 40 years.


    Conservative view of jurisprudence hahahahahahahahahahaha original intent of the lawmakers hahahahahahahahahaha.

    Okay.
    That isn't exactly disproving my take on the liberal view.


    Quote Originally Posted by ZombieHavoc View Post
    Just out of curiosty--why is the policy that you can't charge a sitting president with a crime?

    Like, is that in any situation at all? Like, if a president murdered someone in front of a ton of witnesses and it could be easily proven, the only course would be to see if both sides of elected representative leadership agree the president should be removed from office?

    Also, on the topic of shit in our system that is nuts, is that it is the elected representative leadership that decides if the president should be removed. The people vote to get the president elected (kind of--obviously the EC decides who is elected, but symbolically, the people get a vote), but if that president is not good, not doing a good job, mentally in decline or turns out not to be fit, the only people who can decide to remove him from office is a really really really small group of people who are pretty much controlled by corporations anyway.

    So like basically, Tylenol and the NRA are the only ones who can decide who should be president.

    The more I think about it, the more surprised I am it's taken this long for the American Empire to crumble.
    If the President murdered someone in front of witnesses, and it was easily provable, Congress would impeach and the cabinet would likely invoke the 25th amendment.

    We probably wouldn't want to make it possible to arrest under specific circumstances with a lot of evidence and no doubt that something illegal occurred because that could set a bad precedent that complex cases should never be tried.


    Quote Originally Posted by JCAll View Post
    It's not hypocrisy, McConnell's position has always been that only a Republican could fill a Supreme Court seat. It Hillary had won, that seat would have stayed empty until a Republican was in the White House. Anyone who tells you that the Supreme Court debacle was ever anything other than a partisan power grab is either a fool or a liar.
    It was pretty much a partisan power grab, although part of it is that Obama and Democrats played a bad hand poorly.

    Republicans had a majority in the Senate. They were not going to vote to give liberals a 5-4 majority. In the presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton remained vague on whether she would put Merrick Garland on the court, which took away the moral power of the argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    And yet, you somehow see fit not to apply the same logic to Democrats with regards to issues like immigration ("open borders") where Democrats have routinely proposed legislation for strengthening borders and presided over significant decreases in illegal immigration -- where it's apparently not "more important to look at what they actually do" but to judge them by an article of clothing someone once wore.

    Mets, you routinely support a hypocritical party with hypocritical arguments -- do you really think people here are so ignorant that we can't see that?

    Purely rhetorical question since the answer is obvious.

    -----
    "McConnell Would Fill Potential Supreme Court Vacancy In 2020, Reversal Of 2016 Stance"

    "In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., refused to hold a hearing on President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, saying that it was an election year and that the American people "deserved a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice."

    That was then.

    Speaking to an audience in Kentucky on Monday, McConnell said should a vacancy occur on the court in 2020, another presidential election year, he would allow a vote.

    He was asked at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon: "Should a Supreme Court justice die next year, what will your position be on filling that spot?"

    McConnell responded with a grin, "Oh, we'd fill it."

    https://www.npr.org/2019/05/29/72784...sal-of-2016-st
    There are several issues with the comparison of Shaprio on white supremacism to Democrats on immigration.

    Ben Shapiro's has written and spoken often against white supremacism. Democratic officeholders and candidates tend to be vague on key questions about immigration, namely who they want to kick out of the country who already came in, and what limiting principle they have on legal immigration. Their general actions are against efforts to kick out people who came into the country illegally.

    Shapiro's a commentator so he's able to take controversial positions. It's largely understood that Democratic officeholders are going to keep quiet about issues that would be unpopular with voters. Other commentators are willing to move the overton window by advocating for open borders.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/o...migration.html

    https://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/613590...iew-gdp-double (This is getting turned into a graphic novel with of Zach Weinersmith of SMBC on art.)

    Democrats are free at any point to object to them as vociferously as Ben Shapiro objects to white supremacism. They choose not to.

  12. #2112
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    8,508

    Default

    Shapiro objects to neonazis So strenuously that they regularly cite him as inspirational to them. That checks out.

  13. #2113
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    There are several issues with the comparison of Shaprio on white supremacism to Democrats on immigration.

    Ben Shapiro's has written and spoken often against white supremacism.
    The Democratic party has written and spoken often on wanting stronger borders as well and have presided over decreasing illegal immigration -- you just pick and choose by party instead of actually practicing what you preach when you claim it's "more important to look at what they actually do."



    None of which justifies wholescale family separation and that "wall" your Republican president wants, which is the real issue at hand.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 05-29-2019 at 05:07 PM.

  14. #2114

    Default

    It was on this date in 2015 that ‘Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” posted a profile of Jay Townsend, a former candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010 who tried challenging Sen. Chuck Schumer… by claiming he didn’t actually support Israel enough(Chuck Schumer of all people!). Part of his campaign to do so involved him appearing with known anti-Islamic hate-monger Pamela Geller near the 9/11 site, as she raved about Muslims trying to build a “Ground Zero Mosque”. During protests in Wisconsin against Gov. Scott Walker by union workers, Townsend referred to the unions as “pigs needing to be slaughtered”. When he became a campaign advisor for former Congresswoman Nan Hayworth, he went way, way over the line when he suggested that conservatives should “hurl some acid” at female Democratic Senators who voted for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a move that typically is used by psychos in the Taliban to silence women they don’t agree with. Townsend’s political career has gone from being a terrible candidate, to a liability as an adviser, to not even rating headlines.

    On this date in 2016, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” posted a profile of Spencer Bachus, a former eleven term U.S. House Representative from Alabama's 6th Congressional District from 1993 through 2015, Bachus easily won office in that district, mostly because of redistricting prior to his 1992 run, most of the African American parts of Birmingham, Alabama, were shunted off into Alabama's 7th, and brought most of the white wealthy districts from the 7th to the 6th, making it a much friendlier district to him, as a member of the GOP. While Bachus was often associated with his role from 2006 to 2012 as the head of the House Financial Services Committee, he was certainly a figure not without other controversy. Back in May of 2005, when it was rather easy for conservatives to chastise critics or anyone that had the nerve to not just nod their head and agree, comedian Bill Maher was using his First Amendment right of satire on his show to joke about how the U.S. military began falling short of recruiting goals by saying, "More people joined the Michael Jackson fan club. We've done picked all the low-lying Lynndie England fruit, and now we need warm bodies." Spencer Bachus didn’t take that sort of talk in stride, and had the levelheaded response of accusing Maher of straight-up treason. He eventually was kind enough to backpedal and say that he at least wasn’t going to call for Maher to be prosecuted for this capital crime, instead settling to have him off the air (alas, he would not get that wish). But that’s not the only time Bachus went over the top to demonize dissenting opinions. On April 9th, 2009, he started going the Joe McCarthy route in rhetoric and complaining to local Alabama officials that there were a supposed 17 socialists in the U.S. House. We’ll at least give him credit for Bernie Sanders, at least. Bachus just called it a career perhaps not coincidentally around the time it was revealed he was the most prolific member of Congress to perform legal insider trading (at the time), benefit from knowledge about the collapsing financial industry of the time to manipulate his own personal stock portfolio to profit from the crisis, as many citizens were losing their own homes and retirement funds. He helped get himself richer by betting against the U.S. economy. As Elizabeth Warren began moving to step in and regulate the big banks after that crisis, and close the kinds of loopholes that allowed Bachus' behavior to continue, he responded by saying that she and President Obama were "violating the Constitution". His overall voting record including voting to try and impeach Bill Clinton back in 1998, voted to repeal the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act that led to the 2007 financial crash, voted against Dodd-Frank financial reform that would prevent the next one, voted to allow government buildings to erect monuments of the Ten Commandments, the Iraq War, and was a staunch anti-abortion and pro-gun vote. Since Bachus has moved on to predictably start working as a lobbyist for K Street.

    In both 2017, as well 2018, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” posted profiles of the eleven-term U.S. House Representative from New Jersey’s 11th District, Rodney Frelinghuysen, who arrived in Congress all the way back in the 1994 Red Wave Election. Quite literally, he is a part of one of the oldest political families in the history of the United States, that goes all the way back to the Revolutionary War, that has had seven generations serve as politicians from New Jersey at the state and federal level. The family name has intimidated enough within New Jersey that many pundits note that for two decades, Rodney hasn’t had to face much in the way of a challenger at the polls. Frelinghuysen made a variety of controversial ethical decisions through the years like accepting donations from military contractors while sitting on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, often getting those donations on the same days he voted to get the same companies lucrative government contracts. Eventually, he decided it would be more prudent to stop pretending he represents his constituents at all, dodging town halls altogether. This of course would have a lot to do over the outrage surrounding his endorsement (albeit reluctant) of Donald Trump during the 2016 elections, and in his final term of Congress, his flip-flopping over support for repealing the Affordable Care Act in 2017. He insisted he wouldn’t vote to repeal… and then he did. So almost immediately, disgruntled constituents began calling his Washington, D.C. office, and staking him out if possible. One of the main grassroots activists working against him was Saily Avelenda, a banking executive from his district. And that was unacceptable to Congressman Frelinghuysen, who responded by writing a poison pen letter in the form of an e-mail to Avelenda’s boss, outing Avelenda’s out of work activities to him as a “ringleader”, which yet again made him the target of an ethics investigation, because WOW that is beyond the pale. Through his career, Frelinghuysen was a co-sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act, voted for the impeachment of President Clinton for lying about the Monica Lewinsky affair, voted against Equal Pay for women, against Wall Street reform after the global economy tanked in 2007, against the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and voted for a bill with most House Republicans to defund Planned Parenthood. He is retired, and we hope that it’s not to groom his son to take his place in a few years. We’re going to go ahead and retire his profile at this time and go ahead and take a look at a different wacky Republican today instead. (Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 756-40, since this was established in July 2014.)



    Cliff Hite

    Welcome to the 756th original “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” profile, where today we’ll be taking a look at former Ohio State Senator Cliff Hite, who was first appointed to office back in 2011 by Governor John Kasich after serving four years on the Ohio House of Representatives. (This would be the same John Kasich we noted has an extensive history of misogyny.) After a decade schlepping around the Ohio state legislature, Hite suddenly resigned in October of 2017, citing “health reasons.

    Turns out, Hite has that medical condition a lot of Republicans around the country have had forcing their resignation, of “being a skeevy scumbag”. Because there’s sexual harassment, and then there’s just practically stalking. The 63-year-old Hite was revealed to have actually spent two months pleading with a female legislative employee to have sex with him despite her repeated refusals. Details included he admitted to previous extramarital affairs, , he had a condo and no one would ever know, and on one specific day, he pestered her to have sex with him for more than an hour. Hite would shared intimate details of his sex life with his wife, and would plead, "I'm a grown man with needs," including (but not limited to) oral sex, according to the allegations. The woman refused eight or nine times.

    Cliff Hite’s voting record also was terrible for women (amazing coincidence, that), including support for anti-choice measures as extreme as fetal heartbeat bills. We’ll also note that he voted for legislation to allow guns in bars, tried to nullify the Affordable Care Act, and supported every Voter ID measure he could to try and rig our democracy so that Republicans would win in Ohio going forward.

    Cliff Hite can eat a proverbial bag of Richards, and we’ll leave him in the past.
    X-Books Forum Mutant Tracker/FAQ- Updated every Tuesday.

  15. #2115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    Shapiro objects to neonazis So strenuously that they regularly cite him as inspirational to them. That checks out.
    Perhaps neonazis might have ulterior motives in blaming a prominent Jew for their actions.

    If you think he has said or written something that only neonazis could agree with, point it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    The Democratic party has written and spoken often on wanting stronger borders as well and have presided over decreasing illegal immigration -- you just pick and choose by party instead of actually practicing what you preach when you claim it's "more important to look at what they actually do."



    None of which justifies wholesale family separation and that "wall" your Republican president wants, which is the real issue at hand.
    This is two and a half minutes in which Obama doesn't say what kind of limits he wants on legal immigration, or under what circumstances he'll kick out those who came into the country illegally, which were the things I noted Democrats are vague on.

    He specifies that the bill is a compromise, and not what Democrats actually want.

    And the party has gotten more radical since 2013.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •