Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!


DireWolfSpirit

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Yep. Good advice if you were raised in a conservative environment and want to remain on speaking terms with your family.

I would imagine, but just to clarify in my case the problem isn't that my brother is conservative, it's just getting him to care enough to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I just put it through my enigma machine: Trump hid one of his son's nut. 

Didn’t know you had an alliance with the Poles.  

Did the code breakers find out where he hid it? That’s a good bargaining chip for us to have in our possession if we can get to it first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

 

Me - Do you think it is OK for a sitting president to try and use his position to help himself win an election?

Absolutely as far as that goes.  Incumbancy advantage gets used at every level.  Which sitting Presidents haven't used the trappings of office to advance their careers?  Such a moronic question with such a tunnel vision view based on not liking current potus.  Double standard much?  

The Schiff hearings are a total farce.  The executive branch enforces the law.  Not looking into corruption is a failure to uphold the law and clearly a far more impeachable offense than asking to investigate why a VPs son got 50k plus a month for a sinecure.  

Why should Joe Biden's running for President now put potential prior malfeasance on his part outside the bounds of accountability?  Even if you hate Trump a lot, I mean really really hate him, is that really a standard you want to operate under?  As long as you're running for office past misdeeds shouldn't be examined?  That is totally fucking ludicrous.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

The executive branch enforces the law.  Not looking into corruption is a failure to uphold the law and clearly a far more impeachable offense than asking to investigate why a VPs son got 50k plus a month for a sinecure.

LOL.  There's a special place in jackass hell for people that willfully believe Donald Trump gives two shits about honestly enforcing the law and investigating corruption, let alone thinking the way to fight corruption is to ask a foreign power to investigate your political opponent and his family - which is essentially the dictionary definition of abuse of power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Not looking into corruption is a failure to uphold the law and clearly a far more impeachable offense than asking to investigate why a VPs son got 50k plus a month for a sinecure.

So you're saying Trump should be impeached for failing to take a personal interest in thousands of other potential instances of corruption?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Six months ago, the whole Ukrainian thing was a relatively minor blip, barely noticed in the media.  Then, step by step, it morphed into impeachment proceedings, almost entirely because of Trumps bullheaded stupidity - repeatedly ignoring his advisers, among other things.  Now, we have Trump trying to get all buddy-buddy with Turkey's leader, despite Flynn's kidnapping scheme, the horrific murder of a certain journalist, and the invasion of Syria.  So, I figure there's a fair chance this will also blow up in Trumps face, maybe a fiasco to rival the Ukrainian one.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/a-big-fan-trump-welcomes-turkey-s-erdogan-despite-bipartisan-concern-over-syria-attack/ar-BBWFKZ1?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580&fbclid=IwAR0TDVnlls41h9Ue6UWGAi_DX8j24p0V3_c5x5J4TBLDpAPhbkbHk1CO5cs

 

The meeting with Erdogan, in the works for weeks, allowed Trump to marshal some attention away from the impeachment hearings taking place on Capitol Hill, but it also renewed focus on an issue that has caused rebellion within his own party. 

"Although I have expressed concerns about granting President Erdogan such an honor in light of his recent actions, I hope the meeting produces better behavior from this important NATO ally," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said earlier Wednesday. "I share my colleagues' uneasiness at seeing President Erdogan honored at the White House." 

Both Democrats and Republicans have argued Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria was a betrayal of the Kurdish forces that helped American troops fight the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. Trump dismissed those concerns Wednesday. 

Trump said Erdogan, who has described many of the Kurds on the Turkey-Syria border as terrorists, has a "great relationship with the Kurds."

Speaking to reporters, the president also sided with Erdogan over the question of Syrian refugees. He said Europe should help Turkey pay for the more than 3 million refugees who fled Syria during that country’s civil war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Absolutely as far as that goes.  Incumbancy advantage gets used at every level.  Which sitting Presidents haven't used the trappings of office to advance their careers?  Such a moronic question with such a tunnel vision view based on not liking current potus.  Double standard much?  

Ideally POTUSes should not be doing this period; they should be advancing the interests of the US. Do you agree with that?

9 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

The Schiff hearings are a total farce.  The executive branch enforces the law.  Not looking into corruption is a failure to uphold the law and clearly a far more impeachable offense than asking to investigate why a VPs son got 50k plus a month for a sinecure. 

That's fair. If that's the case, why isn't the US Justice department investigating this? Why is a non-government official investigating this? What active justice department investigations are there into the Bidens? What active justice department investigations are into Burisima? Why did Bill Barr deny any knowledge of these investigations being even referred to his office?

9 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Why should Joe Biden's running for President now put potential prior malfeasance on his part outside the bounds of accountability?  Even if you hate Trump a lot, I mean really really hate him, is that really a standard you want to operate under?  As long as you're running for office past misdeeds shouldn't be examined?  That is totally fucking ludicrous.

It is reasonable for the Department of Justice to investigate prior misdeeds. That is indeed what they did with Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State. (in case you don't mind spoilers, it turns out they found no evidence of criminal activity and no deliberate misclassification). 

It is, however, not reasonable:

  • For an extrajudicial investigation to occur, especially one done by non-government officials acting not on behalf of the country but on behalf of their personal client
  • For said investigation to use allocated aid to force another country to publicly announce their investigation
  • To do all of these things outside the normal sequence of diplomacy
  • And to do all of this without the consent or advice of congress
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DMC said:

This is one of two Alice in Wonderland defenses Jordan and the GOP employed today.  The other:  The military aid was released on September 11 and Zelensky never made a public statement - when the only reason the military aid was released on September 11 is because on September 9 the House became aware of the whistleblower report then on September 10 House committee leaders of both parties sent letters to the White House inquiring about the stalled military aid.  Further, according to the GOP's own timeline, Zelensky only became aware the aid was being withheld following this politico article published on August 29 -- and Zelensky was planning on publicly bowing to Trump's request in a CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria.

You left out the 'Trump Factor,' where our beloved idiot in chief launches a highly incriminating twitter barrage or perhaps 'drops in' on the proceedings to testify on his own behalf.  This being Trump, either is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Absolutely as far as that goes.  Incumbancy advantage gets used at every level.  Which sitting Presidents haven't used the trappings of office to advance their careers?  Such a moronic question with such a tunnel vision view based on not liking current potus.  Double standard much?  

The Schiff hearings are a total farce.  The executive branch enforces the law.  Not looking into corruption is a failure to uphold the law and clearly a far more impeachable offense than asking to investigate why a VPs son got 50k plus a month for a sinecure.  

Why should Joe Biden's running for President now put potential prior malfeasance on his part outside the bounds of accountability?  Even if you hate Trump a lot, I mean really really hate him, is that really a standard you want to operate under?  As long as you're running for office past misdeeds shouldn't be examined?  That is totally fucking ludicrous.

 

You forgot "Perfect Call" and "Witch Hunt"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That's fair. If that's the case, why isn't the US Justice department investigating this? Why is a non-government official investigating this? What active justice department investigations are there into the Bidens? What active justice department investigations are into Burisima? Why did Bill Barr deny any knowledge of these investigations being even referred to his office?

It is reasonable for the Department of Justice to investigate prior misdeeds. That is indeed what they did with Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State. (in case you don't mind spoilers, it turns out they found no evidence of criminal activity and no deliberate misclassification). 

It is, however, not reasonable:

  • For an extrajudicial investigation to occur, especially one done by non-government officials acting not on behalf of the country but on behalf of their personal client
  • For said investigation to use allocated aid to force another country to publicly announce their investigation
  • To do all of these things outside the normal sequence of diplomacy
  • And to do all of this without the consent or advice of congress

Wait, if there s corruption that occurs in a another country the US should only work unilaterally and ignore their jurisdiction entirely?  I don't ever recall hearing that theory prior to this summer.

10 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

 Now, we have Trump trying to get all buddy-buddy with Turkey's leader, despite Flynn's kidnapping scheme, the horrific murder of a certain journalist, and the invasion of Syria. 

Khassoggi (sp?).  I m not an erdogan fan but what did he have to do with that?  If the autocrat in Turkey wanted someone dead he probably wouldn't have it done in a Saudi consulate.  Try citing facts maybe?  

13 minutes ago, felice said:

So you're saying Trump should be impeached for failing to take a personal interest in thousands of other potential instances of corruption?

I m saying Trump did nothing at all wrong there.  Full stop.  Its all manufactured and they could have just easily gone after him for looking into corruption, if the target in question wouldn't reflect badly on the previous administration.

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

LOL.  There's a special place in jackass hell for people that willfully believe Donald Trump gives two shits about honestly enforcing the law and investigating corruption, let alone thinking the way to fight corruption is to ask a foreign power to investigate your political opponent and his family - which is essentially the dictionary definition of abuse of power.

Investigating corruption is abuse of power.  Ok. That's a take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Investigating corruption is abuse of power.  Ok. That's a take.

Um, yes.  Asking a foreign government to investigate your domestic political opponent is an abuse of power.  Particularly when you leverage it with aid that government needs desperately.  That's about as basic a concept as you can get in government.  Enjoy your eternity in jackass hell!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Absolutely as far as that goes.  Incumbancy advantage gets used at every level.  Which sitting Presidents haven't used the trappings of office to advance their careers?  Such a moronic question with such a tunnel vision view based on not liking current potus.  Double standard much?  

The Schiff hearings are a total farce.  The executive branch enforces the law.  Not looking into corruption is a failure to uphold the law and clearly a far more impeachable offense than asking to investigate why a VPs son got 50k plus a month for a sinecure.  

Why should Joe Biden's running for President now put potential prior malfeasance on his part outside the bounds of accountability?  Even if you hate Trump a lot, I mean really really hate him, is that really a standard you want to operate under?  As long as you're running for office past misdeeds shouldn't be examined?  That is totally fucking ludicrous.

 

 

The one good thing is I think I tend to believe that no one actually thinks like this, not really, at least not past that 14-years-old-just-got-real-worlded-by-Atlas-Shrugged-and-now-I-understand-everything way...mea culpa, I’m a humanist...so it’s kinda good to see that it’s not just some urban myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Didn’t know you had an alliance with the Poles.  

Did the code breakers find out where he hid it? That’s a good bargaining chip for us to have in our possession if we can get to it first. 

There’s an enigma machine on display at the Windsor, Ontario city museum right now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

The one good thing is I think I tend to believe that no one actually thinks like this, not really, at least not past that 14-years-old-just-got-real-worlded-by-Atlas-Shrugged-and-now-I-understand-everything way...mea culpa, I’m a humanist...so it’s kinda good to see that it’s not just some urban myth.

Yeah.

Used to think mcbigski was relatively bright, but was viewing events through a different lens. 

Now?

... 

not so much the first part, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Wait, if there s corruption that occurs in a another country the US should only work unilaterally and ignore their jurisdiction entirely?  I don't ever recall hearing that theory prior to this summer.

Two things that matter.

1. There is a process for investigating Americans in another country. The DOJ opens an investigation and then files an official request with the country to help in their investigation. This is what Mueller did and it's what Barr is doing today. These investigations does not involve POTUS because he is normally removed from the normal workings of the DOJ. This is not what is happening.

2. In order to open an investigation in the United States, you need some probable cause that a crime has been committed. Barr refused to open that investigation because they have no evidence of any crime. As a result, instead of the State Department and DOJ making an official request, you have the personal lawyer of POTUS and two indicted conmen conducting shadow diplomacy on behalf of their client (hint: his name is Trump which they have publicly stated multiple times. Holding up to aid to announce an investigation into a single country that happens to be connected to your political rival and has nothing to do with United States policy is not the way you do this.

Anyway, I know these facts don't matter to you but they matter to the situation at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Investigating corruption is abuse of power.  Ok. That's a take.

The issue is that Trump's motives and methods of looking into this alleged corruption were themselves corrupt.

But if you want to talk about something being 'a take', trying to pretend Trump, of all people, has any genuine concern about corruption is indeed a take. You know and I know he's doing far worse every day than anything the Bidens have ever done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rorshach said:

Yeah.

Used to think mcbigski was relatively bright, but was viewing events through a different lens. 

Now?

... 

not so much the first part, no.

It is hard for a guy like McBigski, and Trump also. Promises were made. serious promises by peope who you thought had your best interests at heart.  And then despite all the promises, you find yourself with a mouthful of salty goo. What can one do but swallow it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Big pocket donors want to be sure that the winner won’t raise their taxes and are worried about Biden falling apart?

That would be the cynical take, anyway.

If Biden fell apart, there's still Buttigeig. If Buttigeig fell apart, folks like Bullock (who may actually be the strongest general election candidate if he could get there) and Klobacher are still waiting in the wings. All these late entrants will either accomplish nothing or just help split the moderate vote and make it even more likely that Warren or Sanders will win the nomination.

The only people that could legitimately shake up the race at this point would be Hillary Clinton (please no, for the love of god) or Michelle Obama (and she has zero interest in running, I'm nearly certain). Maybe Al Gore or John Kerry could make some noise, but I think it's too late at this point for them (Kerry had talked a bit about running earlier this year).

The biggest problem is that the primary season simply runs too long and the donors start getting bored, plus the same stories keep getting played over and over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Absolutely as far as that goes.  Incumbancy advantage gets used at every level.  Which sitting Presidents haven't used the trappings of office to advance their careers?  Such a moronic question with such a tunnel vision view based on not liking current potus.  Double standard much?  

The Schiff hearings are a total farce.  The executive branch enforces the law.  Not looking into corruption is a failure to uphold the law and clearly a far more impeachable offense than asking to investigate why a VPs son got 50k plus a month for a sinecure.  

Why should Joe Biden's running for President now put potential prior malfeasance on his part outside the bounds of accountability?  Even if you hate Trump a lot, I mean really really hate him, is that really a standard you want to operate under?  As long as you're running for office past misdeeds shouldn't be examined?  That is totally fucking ludicrous.

 

 

This post is really confusing and self-contradicting. To recap:

·         It’s okay for elected officials to be corrupt

·         The President should investigate corruption

·         Congress shouldn’t investigate corruption

·         It’s okay to make up phony corruption investigations

Can you please build a coherent narrative first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...