gatorbait Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 12 minutes ago, Kemp said: I still think we are better off with a corrupt system than with an even more corrupt system, headed by a pathological liar/criminal. This is something I think about often. We know Washington is corrupt and has special rules for politicians. Say Trump brings down the establishment and gets rid of all the corrupt politicians and MIC agents. Do we trust Trump’s administration to fill these positions with competent people who are less corrupt? A government full of people like Scott Pruitt and Betsy Devos is terrifying to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 28 minutes ago, Kemp said: You really don't get it, do you? The crime isn't called "collusion", but collusion can be an umbrella for a host of felonies. Most of which likely have absolutely zero to do with Russian electoral interference . so again I ask what purpose does the special prosecutor serve at this point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 1 minute ago, Kemp said: Truth and facts are bull****? Orwellian times. This probably is reasonable thought to you: "I was provided with additional input that was radically different from the truth. I assisted in furthering that version." -Colonel Oliver North, from his Iran-Contra testimony" No, normally they way the argument goes is that someone counters with "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," "I am not in favor of gay marriage," "red line," "Benghazi was caused by a Youtube video," etc., in order to illustrate that your outrage is entirely partisan and selective - it's not the lying you don't like, it's the person doing it. Then you'll ignore the point and say "This isn't about Obama/Clinton, it's about Trump." When it's about neither Obama, Clinton, nor Trump. It's about you pretending your rank partisanship is actually virtuous outrage. It's not. You're just a two dollar whore. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 Just now, DC Tom said: No, normally they way the argument goes is that someone counters with "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," "I am not in favor of gay marriage," "red line," "Benghazi was caused by a Youtube video," etc., in order to illustrate that your outrage is entirely partisan and selective - it's not the lying you don't like, it's the person doing it. Then you'll ignore the point and say "This isn't about Obama/Clinton, it's about Trump." When it's about neither Obama, Clinton, nor Trump. It's about you pretending your rank partisanship is actually virtuous outrage. It's not. You're just a two dollar whore. Truth and falsehoods are not subjective. I give you his lies after they are requested and you have to change the topic because you cannot dispute that they are lies. A two-dollar whore? Don't get your hopes up. 6 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Most of which likely have absolutely zero to do with Russian electoral interference . so again I ask what purpose does the special prosecutor serve at this point I guess we'll find out when it's concluded. In the meantime, don't worry about it so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, Kemp said: Truth and falsehoods are not subjective. I give you his lies after they are requested and you have to change the topic because you cannot dispute that they are lies. A two-dollar whore? Don't get your hopes up. I wouldn't bother disputing them. As I said, you can play that game with anyone, so it's a bull **** argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 8 minutes ago, gatorbait said: This is something I think about often. We know Washington is corrupt and has special rules for politicians. Say Trump brings down the establishment and gets rid of all the corrupt politicians and MIC agents. Do we trust Trump’s administration to fill these positions with competent people who are less corrupt? A government full of people like Scott Pruitt and Betsy Devos is terrifying to think about. Replacing one corrupt system with another is not the goal. I agree it would be just as bad. The move has been (and must continue to be) about restoring the agency of the people to vote out the corruption, as well as simultaneously reminding the players in government and the media about how the three branches are supposed to check and balance the others. If the people are empowered, any new corruption that pops up (and it will) can be dealt with as intended, and the people's faith in the system being on the level will be restored. If Trump's goal is to replace one form of corruption with another, while leaving in place the mechanisms that the previous administrations (dem and rep) abused to protect said corruption, then we have a big problem. Vigilance is required. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 8 minutes ago, Kemp said: I guess we'll find out when it's concluded. In the meantime, don't worry about it so much. Youre right. Why worry about palace coups? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: I wouldn't bother disputing them. As I said, you can play that game with anyone, so it's a bull **** argument. Since you can't dispute them, I suppose you are left with no other choice. 2 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Youre right. Why worry about palace coups? You and Trump think he's the King of America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 7 minutes ago, Kemp said: Since you can't dispute them, I suppose you are left with no other choice. It's what politicians do. Name one that hasn't lied (or, in the case of your first example, "evolved") to the same degree. You think it's an issue, because it's Trump. It's an issue, because you forgive it in everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 24 minutes ago, Kemp said: Since you can't dispute them, I suppose you are left with no other choice. You and Trump think he's the King of America. Hes the duly elected president and some ****ty people can’t handle that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 4 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Hes the duly elected president and some ****ty people can’t handle that. Kind of like when Obama was elected and similar sorts couldn't handle it. The big difference is the number of scandals. Wonder if Trump can catch Nixon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 9 minutes ago, Kemp said: Kind of like when Obama was elected and similar sorts couldn't handle it. The big difference is the number of scandals. Wonder if Trump can catch Nixon? That chart has no context. And you don't provide (I'll play along for this question) how many executive branch lawsuits/convictions/jail time for the current administration. Also, If someone like McCabe gets jail time for effing around with investigating Trump, will that count toward Trump adminstration's totals? If Manafort gets jail time (not part of Trumps admin., will you count him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 1 minute ago, snafu said: That chart has no context. And you don't provide (I'll play along for this question) how many executive branch lawsuits/convictions/jail time for the current administration. Also, If someone like McCabe gets jail time for effing around with investigating Trump, will that count toward Trump adminstration's totals? If Manafort gets jail time (not part of Trumps admin., will you count him? As far as I know, there is no posted data for the current administration, yet. I guess we'll see who gets counted against who. I'm amazed that Pruitt hasn't been indicted, yet, with all of his shenanigans, although he certainly needed to have a bulletproof desk. Imagine the outrage if Hillary won and one of her administration had done a third of what Pruitt has done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 6 minutes ago, Kemp said: As far as I know, there is no posted data for the current administration, yet. I guess we'll see who gets counted against who. I'm amazed that Pruitt hasn't been indicted, yet, with all of his shenanigans, although he certainly needed to have a bulletproof desk. Imagine the outrage if Hillary won and one of her administration had done a third of what Pruitt has done. You crack me up! You try to come across as rational and fair, but you're nothing but a dishonest partisan hack. Typical liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 18 minutes ago, Kemp said: Imagine the outrage if Hillary won and one of her administration had done a third of what Pruitt has done. It would be night and day... The outrage machine on her side of the equation has a much wider and broader reach than the other side, generally speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 31 minutes ago, Kemp said: As far as I know, there is no posted data for the current administration, yet. I guess we'll see who gets counted against who. I'm amazed that Pruitt hasn't been indicted, yet, with all of his shenanigans, although he certainly needed to have a bulletproof desk. Imagine the outrage if Hillary won and one of her administration had done a third of what Pruitt has done. Given the **** she pulled as Secretary of State, there clearly wouldn't be as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 5, 2018 Share Posted May 5, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kemp said: Kind of like when Obama was elected and similar sorts couldn't handle it. The big difference is the number of scandals. Wonder if Trump can catch Nixon? You are trying to say that the Obama administration had no scandals? Don't confuse no scandals with failure to prosecute and covering up for perps. Do you have a link for your chart? Edited May 5, 2018 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted May 5, 2018 Share Posted May 5, 2018 3 hours ago, njbuff said: This investigation goes far beyond Russian collusion. Mueller is ordered by the destructive Democrats to get Trump on ANYTHING. Democrats have been proven to be the most disgusting people on the planet. Yes. A Special Prosecutor can investigate new matters that come to light in the process of the investigation. Starr investigating Vince Foster's death and then the Monica Lewinski scandal are examples of an investigation going outside the scope of the initial inquiry. There's no proof of that. I think if Mueller was FBI Director instead of Comey we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with. I'd go with Isis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 5, 2018 Share Posted May 5, 2018 2 hours ago, Kemp said: Kind of like when Obama was elected and similar sorts couldn't handle it. The big difference is the number of scandals. Wonder if Trump can catch Nixon? Silly question but who controls the Indictments? The Indictees or the Indictors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 5, 2018 Share Posted May 5, 2018 40 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: You are trying to say that the Obama administration had no scandals? Don't confuse no scandals with failure to prosecute and covering up for perps. Do you have a link for your chart? Google image search. It's from DailyKos. DailyKos sources a Wikipedia article that, for the most part, shows that the Obama administration simply wasn't investigated as much. There's several indictments in the Bush administration for things the Obama administration glossed over (e.g. contracting fraud, documents destruction.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts