Page 345 of 667 FirstFirst ... 245295335341342343344345346347348349355395445 ... LastLast
Results 5,161 to 5,175 of 10005
  1. #5161
    Postin' since Aug '05 Dalak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    5,985

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    I like how there are emotionally immature people who think that if someone doesn’t agree with them they must be a Trump supporter. There’s a reason why leading Democrats like Schiff who have been incredibly hard on Trump aren’t for impeachment. The numbers aren’t their in either the Senate or public opinion. It’s the majority of Democrats vs the majority of Republicans. Whether you like it or not, the opinion on this is split down partisan lines. Reality doesn’t agree with you and isn’t on your side here. Maybe also understand that just because want something doesn’t mean it’s the best course of action
    Yet you strangely say we have to push for unmaking the 2nd Amendment rather than anything else regardless of how tough it is, how long that'll take, what can be passed well before the magic 2/3rds is reached, and how many might disagree with you.

  2. #5162
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    31,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    It's very serious -- it's not an exaggeration to say our democracy could be at stake.



    "GOP blocks election security bills after Mueller testimony"

    "Senate Republicans blocked two election security bills and a cybersecurity measure on Wednesday in the wake of former special counsel Robert Mueller warning about meddling attempts during his public testimony before congressional lawmakers.

    Democrats tried to get consent to pass two bills that would require campaigns to alert the FBI and Federal Election Commission about foreign offers of assistance, as well as a bill to let the Senate Sergeant at Arms offer voluntary cyber assistance for personal devices and accounts of senators and staff.

    But Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) blocked each of the bills. She didn't give reason for her objections, or say if she was objecting on behalf of herself or the Senate GOP caucus. A spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Under Senate rules, any one senator can ask for consent to pass a bill, but any one senator is able to object.

    The floor drama comes after Mueller warned about election interference during his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, saying Russia was laying the groundwork to interfere in the 2020 election "as we sit here."

    “We are expecting them to do it again during the next campaign,” Mueller said."

    https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...ller-testimony
    I wonder if Hyde-Smith was under orders from Turtle Boy to be the dissenting vote, or if it's just standard operating procedure in the GOP to block bills for no other reason than, well, because, and it was her turn to be the villain, just like the assholes who stalled passage of the 9/11 fund TWICE under a fake ass premise of concern over how to pay for it. In any event, this just goes to show the Republican party doesn't give a **** about safeguarding our elections, especially if lax security at the polls benefits THEM. Democrats need to scream bloody murder in front any and every TV camera they see about what the GOP is doing to our democracy.
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

  3. #5163
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    5,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalak View Post
    Yet you strangely say we have to push for unmaking the 2nd Amendment rather than anything else regardless of how tough it is, how long that'll take, what can be passed well before the magic 2/3rds is reached, and how many might disagree with you.
    Policy vs strategy. You keep arguing with me on this in yet our Party has taken your approach for 30 years and it has feen a complete failure. Not only that, all your sensible gun laws suggestions are ineffective anyways, the Republicans campaign on them being ineffective, and then you lose precisely because you are being pragmatic. It’s a failed losing strategy that has been attempted over and over again. If you are going to be pragmatic and fail precisely because you are, you might as well refocus and go for something substantial. You might still lose, but they won’t be able to argue that your policies are silly and make no difference, and at least you’ll be dying on the hill of something meaningful instead of a half measure. But by all means spend another 30 years playing the same losing game.

    Also while you probably thought you were being clever there, it is wholly irrelevant to the matter at hand. You don’t have the votes for impeachment and unlike gun control it’s not some longterm battle. You get one shot at it. If you don’t get him out of office they will market it as a win and you very well could be looking at 4 more years of him over it. This is about what gets rid of Trump most efficiently. Realistically that’s the election. Anything you do should be in service of that. If you even do start impeachment proceedings do it in October right before where it can hurt him. Don’t give him time to win (he will now) and then market it.

    Two completely different things. One is a long term sample size showing a strategy that clearly is failing vs what is the best way to get rid of one man as effectively as possible.

  4. #5164
    Astonishing Member SquirrelMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    2,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    I like how there are emotionally immature people who think that if someone doesn’t agree with them they must be a Trump supporter. There’s a reason why leading Democrats like Schiff who have been incredibly hard on Trump aren’t for impeachment. The numbers aren’t their in either the Senate or public opinion. It’s the majority of Democrats vs the majority of Republicans. Whether you like it or not, the opinion on this is split down partisan lines. Reality doesn’t agree with you and isn’t on your side here. Maybe also understand that just because want something doesn’t mean it’s the best course of action
    The thing is though:
    As both Bernard Sanders and Trump got support from Russia, it is sometimes hard to tell WHY people are trying to treat Russia's involvement as a non-issue.

  5. #5165
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    5,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SquirrelMan View Post
    The thing is though:
    As both Bernard Sanders and Trump got support from Russia, it is sometimes hard to tell WHY people are trying to treat Russia's involvement as a non-issue.
    Again this has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders, and this is where all you do is split your base. So if you want to try to lose, keep it up. Also Bernie’s campaign didn’t work with Russia

    Russia is a problem independent of anything else. If Trump wasn’t running they still would have interfered. You can focus on Russia independently of a parliamentary impeachment process.

  6. #5166
    Postin' since Aug '05 Dalak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    5,985

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    Policy vs strategy. You keep arguing with me on this in yet our Party has taken your approach for 30 years and it has feen a complete failure. Not only that, all your sensible gun laws suggestions are ineffective anyways, the Republicans campaign on them being ineffective, and then you lose precisely because you are being pragmatic. It’s a failed losing strategy that has been attempted over and over again. If you are going to be pragmatic and fail precisely because you are, you might as well refocus and go for something substantial. You might still lose, but they won’t be able to argue that your policies are silly and make no difference, and at least you’ll be dying on the hill of something meaningful instead of a half measure. But by all means spend another 30 years playing the same losing game.

    Also while you probably thought you were being clever there, it is wholly irrelevant to the matter at hand. You don’t have the votes for impeachment and unlike gun control it’s not some longterm battle. You get one shot at it. If you don’t get him out of office they will market it as a win and you very well could be looking at 4 more years of him over it. This is about what gets rid of Trump most efficiently. Realistically that’s the election. Anything you do should be in service of that. If you even do start impeachment proceedings do it in October right before where it can hurt him. Don’t give him time to win (he will now) and then market it.

    Two completely different things. One is a long term sample size showing a strategy that clearly is failing vs what is the best way to get rid of one man as effectively as possible.
    The totally useless assault weapons ban didn't do a thing which is why the R's made it a priority to axe. You also ignore (For the ummpteenth time) any potential meaningful legislation that can be passed well before the magic 2/3rds is passed that doesn't need to be watered down. You know, Strategic Legislation.

    However I'm with Warren and pro-Impeachment like she is.

  7. #5167
    I am invenitable Jack Dracula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Slouching toward Bethlehem
    Posts
    5,035

    Default

    I'm of the opinion that if Trump squeaked out of impeachment it would motivate more Democratic voters to get to the polls in 2020.
    The desire to bring him down would be even stronger after watching him and his syncophants crowing about it afterward.
    Setbacks often serve to galvanize rather than discourage.
    The Cover Contest Weekly Winners ThreadSo much winning!!

    "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    “It’s your party and you can cry if you want to.” - Captain Europe

  8. #5168
    Ultimate Member Gray Lensman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    15,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalak View Post
    The totally useless assault weapons ban didn't do a thing which is why the R's made it a priority to axe. You also ignore (For the ummpteenth time) any potential meaningful legislation that can be passed well before the magic 2/3rds is passed that doesn't need to be watered down. You know, Strategic Legislation.

    However I'm with Warren and pro-Impeachment like she is.
    McQuisling may have made Knight right on this one - all the Judges Trump got to appoint may very well decide that any gun law is Unconstitutional, and that every state must reciprocate the gun licenses of the least restrictive state.

    Much like I feel that the only way around the court interpretation of binding arbitration is likely to repeal the law that allows it, and pass a new one that limits arbitration to agreements between equals.
    Dark does not mean deep.

  9. #5169
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    5,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalak View Post
    The totally useless assault weapons ban didn't do a thing which is why the R's made it a priority to axe. You also ignore (For the ummpteenth time) any potential meaningful legislation that can be passed well before the magic 2/3rds is passed that doesn't need to be watered down. You know, Strategic Legislation.

    However I'm with Warren and pro-Impeachment like she is.
    Any meaningful legislation at this point you’ll need to run through a filter of

    1. Is this going to meaningfully impact the problem

    2. Can I sell it and not get it railroaded by Republicans as meaningless and ineffective.

    Until you stop getting stuck there, you’ll keep losing. Oh and Republicans are against meaningless **** like bumptstocks, they’ll oppose anything on that front regardless. You need to have the winning argument. Democrats lose on this issue because they get caught with their pants down not being well informed and have to defend a policy proposal that doesn’t have a compelling ROI on it

  10. #5170
    Astonishing Member SquirrelMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    2,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    Again this has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders, and this is where all you do is split your base. So if you want to try to lose, keep it up. Also Bernie’s campaign didn’t work with Russia

    Russia is a problem independent of anything else. If Trump wasn’t running they still would have interfered. You can focus on Russia independently of a parliamentary impeachment process.
    I guess Tad Devine was just Bernard's fair trade coffee boy.

  11. #5171
    Horrific Experiment JCAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    "Attorney General William Barr orders first federal executions in nearly two decades"

    "The federal government will resume executing death-row inmates after nearly two decades without doing so, the Department of Justice announced on Thursday.


    Attorney General William Barr directed the Bureau of Prisons to schedule the executions of five inmates convicted of murder and other crimes. The executions have been scheduled for December 2019 and January 2020."


    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/will...o-decades.html
    Merry Christmas!

  12. #5172
    Mighty Member TriggerWarning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    1,048

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    I like how there are emotionally immature people who think that if someone doesn’t agree with them they must be a Trump supporter. There’s a reason why leading Democrats like Schiff who have been incredibly hard on Trump aren’t for impeachment. The numbers aren’t their in either the Senate or public opinion. It’s the majority of Democrats vs the majority of Republicans. Whether you like it or not, the opinion on this is split down partisan lines. Reality doesn’t agree with you and isn’t on your side here. Maybe also understand that just because want something doesn’t mean it’s the best course of action
    Yep. I didn't vote for Trump in 2016. I won't vote for him in 2020 either. But I also cannot stand how lunatic and unhinged the democrat party has become. I'm harder on the left than I am the right nowadays because I don't have better expectations for the right whereas I'm continuously disappointed in the left who used to better. I saw a term for people like me a while back: disaffected liberal.

    As things stand right now with the way things look to be going I'll be doing one of two things in 2020: 1) Not voting at all for president, or 2) Voting 3rd party again just like I did in 2016. Donald Trump sucking isn't a reason to vote for an equally awful candidate like Hilary Clinton. I'll wait and see who the dems actually run but right now with most of the candidates trying to out lunatic fringe the others 3rd party looks more and more appealing.

  13. #5173
    Silver Sentinel BeastieRunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    15,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shooshoomanjoe View Post
    Anyone read about this story? I still say someone in trump's team is publicly trolling him.
    The TPUSA aide, a conservative organization, has been fired.



    https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/polit...rnd/index.html
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.52082da118d1

    Mix up!? Likely story ...
    "Always listen to the crazy scientist with a weird van or armful of blueprints and diagrams." -- Vibranium

  14. #5174
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    They could, but that might lack some of the investigative powers afforded to an official impeachment process.

    As it stands, Republicans refuse to even allow them to see the unredacted Mueller report, which would be key to their investigation.
    I appreciate the post, I guess you can call me a skeptic that these perks are enough to risk the political fallout.

  15. #5175
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TriggerWarning View Post
    Yep. I didn't vote for Trump in 2016. I won't vote for him in 2020 either. But I also cannot stand how lunatic and unhinged the democrat party has become.
    The Democratic party is not "unhinged" especially in comparison to MAGA bombers and right-wing neo-Nazi Trump supporters marching through our streets, bombing abortion clinics, running over women, and shooting up black churches, synagogues, and mosques. If it were more Democrats who were behaving that way you might have a point but as an earlier post noted "right-wing domestic terror" is the biggest problem America is facing today in that regard.

    If anything, many would argue that the Democratics like Obama and Pelosi have been far too calm and "moderate" in the face of blatant criminality.

    The Republican party is locking American citizens up for weeks without due process or even access to a shower, while promoting racism, homophobia and the fear of Muslims, actively fighting against addressing climate change and protecting a criminal president (attempted obstruction of justice is a crime) -- if any party is "unhinged" at this point, it's the "right-wing" Republican party.

    Even in terms of leadership, Obama was far less "unhinged" than Trump -- no one can sit here and seriously try to argue that Democrats are the lunatics with Trump in office lying constantly and repeatedly attacking fellow government officials with blatantly false allegations.

    -----
    "[S]tudies have shown right-wing extremists are typically the suspects in domestic terror related incidents across the US, including a June 2017 study conducted by Reveal and the Centre for Investigative Reporting that said they were involved in more domestic terrorism incidents than “Islamists” and “left wing” combined."

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9017986.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Theleviathan View Post
    I appreciate the post, I guess you can call me a skeptic that these perks are enough to risk the political fallout.
    Ultimately no one knows how it will work out either way, but to me it's important to get the facts out there regardless.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 07-25-2019 at 01:06 PM.

Posting Permissions

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