I have a serious question for the Trump haters on this board?

[SectionC3]

31 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I am not protecting anyone.  You come on here pretending to be all knowing and you're not.

 

Here's what I would do if I were Obama and Biden right now.  I would come to Washington, walk to the capital, and demand to have a hearing today.  I'd demand open televised hearings.  I'd do so because I believe I'm innocent.  And guess what?  I would have done the same thing if I were Trump several months ago.  If you're innocent, you should have no problems standing in front of the American people and its representatives and answer questions.  You also should have no problem making sure every single person in this country has their constitutional right to vote protected, because you believe your views and policies should win their vote.

 

I believe in our Constitution and our form of government set within.  I believe in the rule of law.  Other than your Deep State stuff, I have no idea what you believe in.  It looks suspiciously like anarchy.

 

 

We can disagree on policy, you and I, but we agree on doing the mechanics the right way.  Great post. 

[Orlando Tim]

34 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I voted for Johnson in 2016 because I could not stomach either of the other two choices.  I would say in most every presidential election I've voted in I voted for the person I thought would do the least damage.  Biden would be this time because I believe Trump wants to be dictator of the US and not president, and while it pains me to do so because of fiscal policies it's not like debt has gone down the past 4 years..

I considered Johnson as well and will certainly not fault you for that. I am curious which actions makes you think he feels he should be dictator?  Most of his decisions in relation to domestic policy seems to be aimed to make States more responsible for themselves. I know he is a blowhard but which policy decisions or stance are you referring to?

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I considered Johnson as well and will certainly not fault you for that. I am curious which actions makes you think he feels he should be dictator?  Most of his decisions in relation to domestic policy seems to be aimed to make States more responsible for themselves. I know he is a blowhard but which policy decisions or stance are you referring to?

Who were the other Democrats you would have voted for instead of Trump? You hated Hillary so you voted Trump, you claim.

[SoCal Deek]

43 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

The border wall national emergency maneuver is a quintessential overreach and a trampling of the United States constitution.  Facilitated by a dumb law, to be sure, but still an overreach. 

Not true. In the case of The Wall, the President didn't spend any funds that the Congress didn't already allocate. And I can assure you that smarter legal scholars than you have looked into it.  Just like in the opposite, the President is not obligated to spend each and every dollar that Congress appropriates....as is in the Ukraine matter. If the Executive Branch has reason to believe that funds are not needed to be spent, or that they will be wasted, he can put a hold on those funds, saving them for another day or budgetary cycle. And...you should be happy our government works that way.

[Orlando Tim]

46 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So, if it was a different Democrat you would have voted for that person? 

 

Can you name several Democrats that are better than Trump right now? 

Current democrats? Not many- I will state that since Biden was the most conservative of people on stage for the primaries probably not. I like Lieberman and Bill Nelson but not too many current Dems. Who would you recommend I look at?

[Tiberius]

6 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Current democrats? Not many- I will state that since Biden was the most conservative of people on stage for the primaries probably not. I like Lieberman and Bill Nelson but not too many current Dems. Who would you recommend I look at?

Basically, you would have voted for Trump over almost any Democrat, right? 

[Buffalo_Gal]

7 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

I am not protecting anyone.  You come on here pretending to be all knowing and you're not.

 

Here's what I would do if I were Obama and Biden right now.  I would come to Washington, walk to the capital, and demand to have a hearing today.  I'd demand open televised hearings.  I'd do so because I believe I'm innocent.  And guess what?  I would have done the same thing if I were Trump several months ago.  If you're innocent, you should have no problems standing in front of the American people and its representatives and answer questions.  You also should have no problem making sure every single person in this country has their constitutional right to vote protected, because you believe your views and policies should win their vote.

 

I believe in our Constitution and our form of government set within.  I believe in the rule of law.  Other than your Deep State stuff, I have no idea what you believe in.  It looks suspiciously like anarchy.

 

 

Oh please, please, please, pullllllllllllllllllllllzzzzze have them follow that advice. Please, please, please!! Could the you imagine? "So, why did you work the coup in the Ukraine and how much of that $1B was laundered back to the DNC? " or "So, about that $1.5B in China..." or "While you were spying on everyone illegally, framing people for crimes not committed,  and trying to take down a dully elected President... "   and that is just in the last year of office. We can go back much further if you like!!  And, we have the papers to prove you are both corrupt pieces of *****! 

Good times!

Corrupt and Corrupt Jr want no part of hearings, but wowwee, I'd be thrilled to see them. Must see TV as Biden can't recall anything and Obama stutters through all his answers without a teleprompter. 
 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal

[SectionC3]

5 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I considered Johnson as well and will certainly not fault you for that. I am curious which actions makes you think he feels he should be dictator?  Most of his decisions in relation to domestic policy seems to be aimed to make States more responsible for themselves. I know he is a blowhard but which policy decisions or stance are you referring to?

 

Border wall national emergency declaration to secure funds Congress wouldn’t approve.  It’s a travesty.  

 

Stuff like (admittedly I don’t have more specifics here) the late-night firing of an Inspector General. 

 

The shenanigans described in Volume II of the Mueller report (that’s not a political statement; just read the report - what he did was BS from a rule of law perspective).

 

Toeing the line on the emoluments clause. 

 

The “absolute authority” nonsense.  

 

His “fake news” tropes to fool his followers.  

 

Attaching his name to the recent stimulus checks.  

 

The fascination with strongmen like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un (and comments made in support thereof).  

 

And that’s just ff the top of my head.  

 

***

 

I don’t detest this guy because of policy.  I don’t necessarily like all of his policies, but that’s how things work in this country.  We don’t agree on everything all of the time. 

 

I detest this guy because the truth is a matter of convenience for him.  And what he’s done with respect to the truth and the usurpation of presidential power strikes at the core of of our democracy.  I appreciate that his views on wedge issues and economics have caused some to hold their noses and support this guy.  But the price of victory should be too great for those people given that it shakes the foundations of our democracy.  

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Not true. In the case of The Wall, the President didn't spend any funds that the Congress didn't already allocate. And I can assure you that smarter legal scholars than you have looked into it.  Just like in the opposite, the President is not obligated to spend each and every dollar that Congress appropriates....as is in the Ukraine matter. If the Executive Branch has reason to believe that funds are not needed to be spent, or that they will be wasted, he can put a hold on those funds, saving them for another day or budgetary cycle. And...you should be happy our government works that way.

 

I’m sorry but you’re just flat wrong and miles out of your depth.  The declaration was used to reappropriate funds for border wall construction that Congress had approved for purposes other than the wall.  The first article of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse.  Congress had to approve funds for wall construction.  It didn’t.  So the prez tried to backdoor the money through the NEA.  That approach simply is not constitutional.  

 

 

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

I am not protecting anyone.  You come on here pretending to be all knowing and you're not.

 

Here's what I would do if I were Obama and Biden right now.  I would come to Washington, walk to the capital, and demand to have a hearing today.  I'd demand open televised hearings.  I'd do so because I believe I'm innocent.  And guess what?  I would have done the same thing if I were Trump several months ago.  If you're innocent, you should have no problems standing in front of the American people and its representatives and answer questions.  You also should have no problem making sure every single person in this country has their constitutional right to vote protected, because you believe your views and policies should win their vote.

 

I believe in our Constitution and our form of government set within.  I believe in the rule of law.  Other than your Deep State stuff, I have no idea what you believe in.  It looks suspiciously like anarchy.

 

 

I would love to agree with you but Washington is not a place overly concerned with Truth and your inability to acknowledge that is our great divide right now. The Dems went after a good man and lied and smeared Kavanaugh in a most vicious way. They set up a phony "Russian collusion" investigation and pushed people to lie and then tried to impeach Trump for doing something completely legal. Those three things would never had happened if truth was a goal. The is only to gain power and money for to many in DC.

[Reality Check]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Border wall national emergency declaration to secure funds Congress wouldn’t approve.  It’s a travesty.  

 

Stuff like (admittedly I don’t have more specifics here) the late-night firing of an Inspector General. 

 

The shenanigans described in Volume II of the Mueller report (that’s not a political statement; just read the report - what he did was BS from a rule of law perspective).

 

Toeing the line on the emoluments clause. 

 

The “absolute authority” nonsense.  

 

His “fake news” tropes to fool his followers.  

 

Attaching his name to the recent stimulus checks.  

 

The fascination with strongmen like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un (and comments made in support thereof).  

 

And that’s just ff the top of my head.  

 

***

 

I don’t detest this guy because of policy.  I don’t necessarily like all of his policies, but that’s how things work in this country.  We don’t agree on everything all of the time. 

 

I detest this guy because the truth is a matter of convenience for him.  And what he’s done with respect to the truth and the usurpation of presidential power strikes at the core of of our democracy.  I appreciate that his views on wedge issues and economics have caused some to hold their noses and support this guy.  But the price of victory should be too great for those people given that it shakes the foundations of our democracy.  

A lawyer pretending to know something about the truth. Now I've heard everything. This coming Winter will prove to be quite bitter for you.

[SectionC3]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I would love to agree with you but Washington is not a place overly concerned with Truth and your inability to acknowledge that is our great divide right now. The Dems went after a good man and lied and smeared Kavanaugh in a most vicious way. They set up a phony "Russian collusion" investigation and pushed people to lie and then tried to impeach Trump for doing something completely legal. Those three things would never had happened if truth was a goal. The is only to gain power and money for to many in DC.

 

Personally I think Kavanaugh is a partisan d-bag, but I will agree with you that he was smeared and that what happened there was wrong.  Elections have consequences, and they were entitled to their judge.  

[oldmanfan]

27 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I considered Johnson as well and will certainly not fault you for that. I am curious which actions makes you think he feels he should be dictator?  Most of his decisions in relation to domestic policy seems to be aimed to make States more responsible for themselves. I know he is a blowhard but which policy decisions or stance are you referring to?

When he said he has power over all governors was one.  I also don’t like firing inspectors general and I don’t like telling Congress they don’t get to exercise their oversight responsibilities by telling folks to ignore subpoenas.  

 

As for current Dems I would have wanted Klobuchar.  More moderate to me, liked her stance on having to actually have a way to pay for programs.

15 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I would love to agree with you but Washington is not a place overly concerned with Truth and your inability to acknowledge that is our great divide right now. The Dems went after a good man and lied and smeared Kavanaugh in a most vicious way. They set up a phony "Russian collusion" investigation and pushed people to lie and then tried to impeach Trump for doing something completely legal. Those three things would never had happened if truth was a goal. The is only to gain power and money for to many in DC.

Agree on Kavanaugh.  Not my cup of tea; to me I’d want 9 justices that are true middle of the road.  But that sadly can’t happen anymore.   

 

I agree truth is a is a hard thing to find in DC. Our difference is that to me that door swings both ways.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

A honest question that deserves an honest answer.  I want Trump gone because I think he is totally unqualified for the position.  I think he lies repeatedly about things, I think he is anything but a fiscal conservative, I think he refuses to accept responsibility for things under his presidency, highlighted by the coronavirus issue.  I think if you read through the Muller report that Muller wanted to indict but felt he could not due to DOJ guidelines.  And if you look at things like the inspectors general and such it seems clear to me that Trump does not want to be president.  He wants to be king or, worse, a dictator.  And to me we had a revolution back in the 1700's to fight against that.  

 

You ask why then I would support Obama.  Well,  I didn't.  I voted for McCain (and prayed he'd be healthy so we did not have to have another supremely unqualified individual in Palin in the office).  I did not think Obama had the qualifications to be elected in 2008, and I was not a fan of his fiscal policies, and I really disagreed with his foreign policy.  Drawing a red line and then stepping back in Syria was the height of weakness.    In 2012 I thought Romney would have been a good president, and I lost again.  I still think Romney would be good.  And I think Romney being good is reflected in part that he thinks Trump is bad.

 

I am independent, very conservative on issues such as fiscal policy and law and order, much more liberal in terms of social policies.  I have two daughters and having a serial abuser like Trump in the White House makes me angry.  I think our country is better than that.  I think our country deserves better leadership than that.  I know this side of the board is populated by the Deep State conspiracists, the right wings folks (not Republicans, I think the concept of the Republican party as the party I knew it and once belonged to disappeared in 2016). So I suspect my thoughts here will be denigrated, and that's part of the problem.  I think this country desperately needs to unite again, to be able to have political discourse and political disagreement without resorting to childish name calling, and, worse, making up stories out of whole cloth to try and tear down the other side.  

 

What I would ask is really, really simple:  if the parties were flip flopped, and you had a Democrat in the office behaving the way Trump is doing so now, would your views change?  I would say yes to most everyone here.  The very things one defends about Trump would have had the same folks calling for Obama's head and screaming impeachment if the opposite party had done so.  And vice versa for democrats if Obama were a Republican.  If Obama were a Republican, and McConnell pulled the stuff with Garland as a Democrat, the same folks who defended it would have screamed bloody murder. 

 

This tribalization, polarization, and inability to see things through the opposite side of the prism is going to destroy this country, because everyone knows that the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum will never get what they want.  Because they don't have enough votes to do so. we have a national crisis right now.  In times of crisis (other than the Civil War) the country has historically come together; this time it is drawing the country further apart.  We can't stand for this much longer without losing what made our country great.

 

So you asked, there's my answer.  I hope you can have a civil discourse about it.  Regrettably I suspect not.

 

 

 

I didn't pose the initial question, so I want to acknowledge I'm jumping in here.  Presumably, your question about parties being flip-flopped applies to all, so I'll share my two cents. 

 

Your political views are probably pretty close to mine in terms of how you've described them.  As we so often find, people tend to agree on many things generally, but often come to blows over one or two hot button issues. 

 

I'd say with respect that if the roles were flip-flopped, I'd feel the same way I do today.  If Donald Trump weaponized the intelligence agency to assert control over our elections, if he charged the DOJ with destroying an American citizen with bogus charges and used the crushing weight of tyranny to do so, I would speak up.  If Mitch McConnell and the Rs in power attempted the character assassination of a judge with the record of a Brett Kavanaugh the way the dems tried to gut BK, I'd be incensed.  Merrick Garland, btw, was the victim of the American political system and all it's ugliness, but the reality is simply that elections have consequences.  We saw the same approach with the phony impeachment probe last year.  What was done was done because it could be done. No laws were broken, we ain't all in this together, and Garland was a pony backed by the wrong side. 

 

If the roles were flip-flopped, I'd hope to God I wasn't so bound up with personal animus against an individual that I'd buy into what amounts to the storyline of a really crappy Ludlum novel that a Presidential candidate was a Russian operative, sit by as politician after politician after politician claimed to have clear and convincing evidence of  something mysteriously referred to as 'collusion', all the while waiting for a massive government investigation to be completed with no boundaries, no limitations, and no budgetary constraints that ultimately leads to...nothing.  Personally, I'd be embarrassed to have been duped, to have impacted the rights and vote of my fellow citizens and to have contributed in a major way toward the polarization of which you speak.  In the alternative, with so much at stake as the voting rights of other citizens are impacted, I would expect the narrative would be proven beyond a reasonable doubt or that heads would roll for the IC missing so badly. 

 

If the roles were flip-flopped, and one of my like-minded friends suggested CONSPIRACY over the firing of any, and I mean any administration official, my first question would always be....Did the president have the power to terminate the relationship?  If the answer to that was "Yes, he did but..." my response would be simply "It is what it is.".  In fact, that's happened many times over the past several years.  James Comey fired?  So?  IG fired?  So.  If you serve at the pleasure of the President, and you no longer please the President, there's not much more to discuss whether it's Obama, Bush, Clinton (Bill, not Hill) or Jimmy Carter.  It's really just a matter of googling presidents and who(m) they fired and you can find out---and this is crazy--it happens in every administration.  

 

If the roles were reversed and Donald Trump sent billions in unmarked bills on a cargo plane to Syria, I'd be furious.  I'd wonder why cash was king, especially given international banking regulations and the fact that he acted like a 3rd rate gangster in doing so.  I'd wonder how much of the billion+ was funneled back to him, his family members and his associates, especially if I foun out he dropped a cool $25m on a climate killing oceanfront villa off the cape. 

 

I have a wife, one daughter, a mother and mother-in-law, and two sisters I love, adore and cherish.  I am blessed that they are strong and independent thinking women, who don't gauge their own self-worth by the actions of people like Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Barrack Obama or W Bush or any of the many, many other politicians that dot the landscape.  I understand your desire to boil it all down to sexual assault allegations, but I don't limit my thinking as such.  

 

I voted for John McCain and came to despise him--he has the blood of hundreds of untold innocents on his hands while allowing the border to go unaddressed, and I was glad to see him gone from the Senate.  I respect his military service, respect his toughness, but he was morphed into bloated gorgon of the ruling political class over several decades.   You can add as many names as you want to that list, btw, Obama, Bush, Kennedy, McConnell, Graham, Pelosi, Feinstein...all have fiddled while men, women and children are victimized day after day after day.  

 

I'd think if the situation was flip-flopped and Biden was in office during Ukrainamania, and I was sure we had him, I'd think it very, very odd that Trump as VP was on taping shaking down the Ukrainians for the purpose of interfering in the affairs of a sovereign nation, and I'd think it even more odd that he did so with the knowledge that his son stood to benefit personally and directly to the tune of millions of dollars.  I don't think I'd stomp my feet, cover my ears and say "I don't want to talk about that!". 

 

This buzzword, 'tribalism' is all the rage these days.  It means...nothing, and interestingly, reeks of bigotry.  Personally, I no longer have a desire to 'meet in the middle' when the people on the other side support the things they do, that snap their fingers along when some cool cat like Barry O slow jam on Fallon all the while he's slow-jammin the electoral process.  I have no desire to meet in the middle when people pretend to be morally outraged by Trump and his comments while flocking like minions to vote for Hillary Clinton, she of 'bimbo eruptions, dead ambassadors and such unifying language as ...deplorabe...irredeemable...misogynst...xenophobe and the like'.    It's not that I'm "tribal", it's that I vote in my own best interest, and just based on the math of 300,000,000+ million Americans, there are lots of people who think like I do. 

 

Personally, I do my part as a citizen when someone I don't like is in office.  Obama was a bad president and it's becoming more apparent every day that he's a bad human being (atleast as judge by our political process), but the only pushback from me was in conversation when it mattered, and as to who and where I directed my money and efforts.  I didn't call for his ouster, I would not have supported political action to dethrone him, and if Joe Biden wins the election, so be it. 

 

Then again, I'm just a conspiracy guy. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

When he said he has power over all governors was one.  I also don’t like firing inspectors general and I don’t like telling Congress they don’t get to exercise their oversight responsibilities by telling folks to ignore subpoenas.  

 

As for current Dems I would have wanted Klobuchar.  More moderate to me, liked her stance on having to actually have a way to pay for programs.

He actually did have the power, if he chose to enforce it. He did not (to his great credit). 

I've posted this numerous times:

National Emergencies Act. Stafford Act. Presidential Emergency Actions Documents.   Look them up... well, as far as you can. Apparently, some powers are classified. (Isn't that scary?)

What the president has the ability to do, and what he eventually does may well be two different things. But, there is no question that these acts give him the final say when a disaster is national.

And for the follow-up questions sure to come, I wrote this too:

When the 50th state went to a declared national disaster (Wyoming on Saturday), things changed. That Uncle Sam Sugar-money comes with strings. Sometimes long strings.

Trump seems to like making a declarative line in the sand, makes conciliatory noises to bring people in so they are (or at least feel they are) part of the decisions,  and then he negotiates from there.  Push-pull.

Do I think he is going to do any of these things?  No idea. I sincerely hope not. Does he have the legal authority to do them? Apparently so.
 

[oldmanfan]

21 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Oh please, please, please, pullllllllllllllllllllllzzzzze have them follow that advice. Please, please, please!! Could the you image? "So, why did you work the coup in the Ukraine and how much of that $1B was laundered back to the DNC? " or "So, about that $1.5B in China..." or "While you were spying on everyone illegally, framing people for crimes not committed,  and trying to take down a dully elected President... "   and that is just in the last year of office. We can go back much further if you like!!  And, we have the papers to prove you are both corrupt pieces of *****! 

Good times!

Corrupt and Corrupt Jr want no part of hearings, but wowwee, I'd be thrilled to see them. Must see TV as Biden can't recall anything and Obama stutters through all his answers without a teleprompter. 
 

They’ll have hearings.  I suspect you’ll be disappointed as you were with Benghazi and as Democrats were last fall.

[Buffalo_Gal]

15 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

They’ll have hearings.  I suspect you’ll be disappointed as you were with Benghazi and as Democrats were last fall.

What difference does it make? 

You had written that Obama and Biden should demand hearings. The very last thing in this world that either Obama or Biden want is hearings. The. Last. Thing. 

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal

[oldmanfan]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I didn't pose the initial question, so I want to acknowledge I'm jumping in here.  Presumably, your question about parties being flip-flopped applies to all, so I'll share my two cents. 

 

Your political views are probably pretty close to mine in terms of how you've described them.  As we so often find, people tend to agree on many things generally, but often come to blows over one or two hot button issues. 

 

I'd say with respect that if the roles were flip-flopped, I'd feel the same way I do today.  If Donald Trump weaponized the intelligence agency to assert control over our elections, if he charged the DOJ with destroying an American citizen with bogus charges and used the crushing weight of tyranny to do so, I would speak up.  If Mitch McConnell and the Rs in power attempted the character assassination of a judge with the record of a Brett Kavanaugh the way the dems tried to gut BK, I'd be incensed.  Merrick Garland, btw, was the victim of the American political system and all it's ugliness, but the reality is simply that elections have consequences.  We saw the same approach with the phony impeachment probe last year.  What was done was done because it could be done. No laws were broken, we ain't all in this together, and Garland was a pony backed by the wrong side. 

 

If the roles were flip-flopped, I'd hope to God I wasn't so bound up with personal animus against an individual that I'd buy into what amounts to the storyline of a really crappy Ludlum novel that a Presidential candidate was a Russian operative, sit by as politician after politician after politician claimed to have clear and convincing evidence of  something mysteriously referred to as 'collusion', all the while waiting for a massive government investigation to be completed with no boundaries, no limitations, and no budgetary constraints that ultimately leads to...nothing.  Personally, I'd be embarrassed to have been duped, to have impacted the rights and vote of my fellow citizens and to have contributed in a major way toward the polarization of which you speak.  In the alternative, with so much at stake as the voting rights of other citizens are impacted, I would expect the narrative would be proven beyond a reasonable doubt or that heads would roll for the IC missing so badly. 

 

If the roles were flip-flopped, and one of my like-minded friends suggested CONSPIRACY over the firing of any, and I mean any administration official, my first question would always be....Did the president have the power to terminate the relationship?  If the answer to that was "Yes, he did but..." my response would be simply "It is what it is.".  In fact, that's happened many times over the past several years.  James Comey fired?  So?  IG fired?  So.  If you serve at the pleasure of the President, and you no longer please the President, there's not much more to discuss whether it's Obama, Bush, Clinton (Bill, not Hill) or Jimmy Carter.  It's really just a matter of googling presidents and who(m) they fired and you can find out---and this is crazy--it happens in every administration.  

 

If the roles were reversed and Donald Trump sent billions in unmarked bills on a cargo plane to Syria, I'd be furious.  I'd wonder why cash was king, especially given international banking regulations and the fact that he acted like a 3rd rate gangster in doing so.  I'd wonder how much of the billion+ was funneled back to him, his family members and his associates, especially if I foun out he dropped a cool $25m on a climate killing oceanfront villa off the cape. 

 

I have a wife, one daughter, a mother and mother-in-law, and two sisters I love, adore and cherish.  I am blessed that they are strong and independent thinking women, who don't gauge their own self-worth by the actions of people like Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Barrack Obama or W Bush or any of the many, many other politicians that dot the landscape.  I understand your desire to boil it all down to sexual assault allegations, but I don't limit my thinking as such.  

 

I voted for John McCain and came to despise him--he has the blood of hundreds of untold innocents on his hands while allowing the border to go unaddressed, and I was glad to see him gone from the Senate.  I respect his military service, respect his toughness, but he was morphed into bloated gorgon of the ruling political class over several decades.   You can add as many names as you want to that list, btw, Obama, Bush, Kennedy, McConnell, Graham, Pelosi, Feinstein...all have fiddled while men, women and children are victimized day after day after day.  

 

I'd think if the situation was flip-flopped and Biden was in office during Ukrainamania, and I was sure we had him, I'd think it very, very odd that Trump as VP was on taping shaking down the Ukrainians for the purpose of interfering in the affairs of a sovereign nation, and I'd think it even more odd that he did so with the knowledge that his son stood to benefit personally and directly to the tune of millions of dollars.  I don't think I'd stomp my feet, cover my ears and say "I don't want to talk about that!". 

 

This buzzword, 'tribalism' is all the rage these days.  It means...nothing, and interestingly, reeks of bigotry.  Personally, I no longer have a desire to 'meet in the middle' when the people on the other side support the things they do, that snap their fingers along when some cool cat like Barry O slow jam on Fallon all the while he's slow-jammin the electoral process.  I have no desire to meet in the middle when people pretend to be morally outraged by Trump and his comments while flocking like minions to vote for Hillary Clinton, she of 'bimbo eruptions, dead ambassadors and such unifying language as ...deplorabe...irredeemable...misogynst...xenophobe and the like'.    It's not that I'm "tribal", it's that I vote in my own best interest, and just based on the math of 300,000,000+ million Americans, there are lots of people who think like I do. 

 

Personally, I do my part as a citizen when someone I don't like is in office.  Obama was a bad president and it's becoming more apparent every day that he's a bad human being (atleast as judge by our political process), but the only pushback from me was in conversation when it mattered, and as to who and where I directed my money and efforts.  I didn't call for his ouster, I would not have supported political action to dethrone him, and if Joe Biden wins the election, so be it. 

 

Then again, I'm just a conspiracy guy. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks, like this response.  We disagree on a couple things but overall I think we’re on the same page.

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

What difference does it make? 

You has written that Obama and Biden should demand hearings. The very last thing in this world that either Obama or Biden want is hearings. The. Last. Thing. 

 

Again they’ll have them and I suspect you’ll be disappointed in the outcome.

[SoCal Deek]

31 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I’m sorry but you’re just flat wrong and miles out of your depth.  The declaration was used to reappropriate funds for border wall construction that Congress had approved for purposes other than the wall.  The first article of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse.  Congress had to approve funds for wall construction.  It didn’t.  So the prez tried to backdoor the money through the NEA.  That approach simply is not constitutional.  

 

 

Nice try hot shot. If you are correct, then why is the wall being built?  Go sell your 'expertise' somewhere else.

[Buffalo_Gal]

19 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

When he said he has power over all governors was one.  I also don’t like firing inspectors general and I don’t like telling Congress they don’t get to exercise their oversight responsibilities by telling folks to ignore subpoenas.  

 

As for current Dems I would have wanted Klobuchar.  More moderate to me, liked her stance on having to actually have a way to pay for programs.

Agree on Kavanaugh.  Not my cup of tea; to me I’d want 9 justices that are true middle of the road.  But that sadly can’t happen anymore.   

 

I agree truth is a is a hard thing to find in DC. Our difference is that to me that door swings both ways.

Now, as far as the  IGs... couple of things. Obama fired IGs. (2009 article)  But worse, the very first thing Obama did was neuter the IGs. If they asked for information and were denied that information by the agencies they were supposed to be investigating, that was it.  Grassley has to pass a law to reverse this.  Congressional record. 

Can't let the IGs inspect!

</snip>

Last year, 47 of the nation’s 73 federal IGs signed an open letter decrying the Obama administration’s stonewalling of their investigations. The White House, they reported, had placed “serious limitations on access to records that have recently impeded the work” of IGs at the Peace Corps, the EPA and the Department of Justice, and jeopardized their “ability to conduct our work thoroughly, independently and in a timely manner.”

At the rotten core of the war on federal watchdogs: Obama’s undermining Justice Department, which has distorted and destroyed the plain meaning of “all records.”

Earlier this year in congressional testimony, DOJ IG Michael Horowitz exposed the Obama administration’s “continued refusal by the Department to recognize that Section 6(a) of the Inspector General Act authorizes the DOJ OIG to obtain access to all records in the Department’s possession that we need in order to perform our oversight responsibilities” as the office investigates the IRS witch hunts, the Fast and Furious scandal and systemic public disclosure evasions.

</snip>

Edited May 21, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Now, as far as the  IGs... couple of things. Obama fired IGs. (2009 article)  But worse, the very first thing Obama did was neuter the IGs. If they asked for information and were denied by the agencies they were supposed to be investigating, that was it. 
 

Gal....I think the heart of this issue is whether the IG's are supposed to be working at the will and direction of the President.  In other words, is the President supposed to be directing what he/she wants them to be 'inspectoring'.  Or, are they supposed to be looking into anything they want to.

[oldmanfan]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Now, as far as the  IGs... couple of things. Obama fired IGs. (2009 article)  But worse, the very first thing Obama did was neuter the IGs. If they asked for information and were denied that information by the agencies they were supposed to be investigating, that was it.  Grassley has to pass a law to reverse this.  Congressional record. 

Can't let the IGs inspect!

</snip>

Last year, 47 of the nation’s 73 federal IGs signed an open letter decrying the Obama administration’s stonewalling of their investigations. The White House, they reported, had placed “serious limitations on access to records that have recently impeded the work” of IGs at the Peace Corps, the EPA and the Department of Justice, and jeopardized their “ability to conduct our work thoroughly, independently and in a timely manner.”

At the rotten core of the war on federal watchdogs: Obama’s undermining Justice Department, which has distorted and destroyed the plain meaning of “all records.”

Earlier this year in congressional testimony, DOJ IG Michael Horowitz exposed the Obama administration’s “continued refusal by the Department to recognize that Section 6(a) of the Inspector General Act authorizes the DOJ OIG to obtain access to all records in the Department’s possession that we need in order to perform our oversight responsibilities” as the office investigates the IRS witch hunts, the Fast and Furious scandal and systemic public disclosure evasions.

</snip>

I didn't think that was right either.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Then all the more reason to allow your staff to testify.  If you are innocent then there should be no problem with folks testifying.  And that escapes the point.,  The point is that there is supposed to be a balance of power as envisioned by our founding fathers.  And it is apparent to me that Trump wants to ignore that.  I do not recall any other president saying, and I'll paraphrase here, that they have complete power.

 

Do you want a dictator or president?  I want a president.  And I will come back to one of my original points.  If the party labels were different and this were a Democrat would your response be identical.  To be fair, I think yours would.  I would not say that for many.

Yes I voted for McCain.  And Romney.  I started this off indicating I would like to have a civil discourse on this but expected the opposite.  And here you are calling me a liar.  As I expected.  I have never actually voted for a Democrat for president and my first presidential vote was 1976.  

I have a President, my problem is the folks trying to ice him outside the ballot box. 

 

To the bolded, this has never been the standard, never will be the standard and is naive to the point of absurdity.  If, generally, you as a voter think every investigation some junior politico can come up with requires voluntarily submitting to a tribunal to prove one's innocence, great.  It's a noble aspiration indeed.  Hold your people to account for it and vote accordingly.  

 

Since it never happens in real life, why apply that standard to everyone else?  If one is innocent, why have limitations on police powers and prosecutions to safeguard civil liberties to begin with?  If one is innocent, why would a search warrant be necessary for police to perform a search in the name of public safety?  Why have attorney/client privilege?  Why have a required Miranda disclosure, and a constitutional right to refuse to answer?  To take this through to it's natural conclusion, why tie the hands of the CIA and FBI if people are innocent?  It cannot be cost, because as everyone knows, defending oneself is completely and totally without cost. 

 

What were your general feelings on the Kavanaugh hearings?  Better, worse or the same as treatment of Garland?

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Gal....I think the heart of this issue is whether the IG's are supposed to be working at the will and direction of the President.  In other words, is the President supposed to be directing what he/she wants them to be 'inspectoring'.  Or, are they supposed to be looking into anything they want to.

Well, if they are supposed to have access to paperwork to do their jobs, they are supposed to have access to paperwork to do their jobs.

Inspector General act 1978.
( b ) An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President. 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Well, if they are supposed to have access to paperwork to do their jobs, they are supposed to have access to paperwork to do their jobs.

Inspector General act 1978.
( b ) An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President. 

 

Everyone knows this to be true, and if they didn't, it takes less than 5 minutes to find on the internet.  It's a common political tactic, report on something perfectly legal and just as if it's an outrageous act of tyranny.  It lather up the uninformed. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

9 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I didn't think that was right either.

You said Trump lied about having the authority. Like it or not, he did NOT lie about having that authority. 

 

[oldmanfan]

As for Kavanaugh, I think it was bad.   I don't necessarily agree with his judicial views, but presidents get to pick their justices and having an 11th hour woman who had no real evidence of his misconduct was wrong.  And I say that as one who has daughters and is firmly on the side of women who, if they feel they have been wronged, should be encouraged to come forward and who should be heard.  They just should have some evidence in support.  Same thing with this Reid woman and Biden.

 

Garland I thought was ridiculous for the same reason.  The president has the right to send up nominees for the court, it's his constitutional responsibility.  And they should be considered by the Senate.  I am not a big fan of professional politicians and McConnell to me is the slimiest of the current bunch.  Because he has already stated he would seat someone this year before the election.  

 

Going back to what I would do if I were Obama, or if I had been Trump last fall, I absolutely agree with innocent before proven guilty, a bedrock of our legal foundation.  what I am saying is that if I knew I was innocent, and a Congressional committee, using its oversight authority, called  my staff as witnesses (or even myself), I would have no problem having myself or them testify.  Because I would know I was innocent, and from a more political perspective I know it would look really bad on the opposing party.

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

You said Trump lied about having the authority. Like it or not, he did NOT lie about having that authority. 

 

I believe IG's should be independent, or else they have no real authority.  If you haven't caught on yet, I am a big believer on transparency in government.  I understand there are some secrets that have to be held based on national security concerns, but the bottom line is everyone in that city works for us and are accountable to us, the citizens.

[njbuff]

I didn't expect this type of response to my thread.

 

I wish I was getting paid by each comment.

 

I can't even get this damn quarantine to work in my favor. ?

[Bill from NYC]

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2020 at 12:45 PM, RochesterRob said:

  Their lives are an endless tire fire of their own creation.  20 years after the fact they cannot cope with admitting that some degree in poetry was not the path to a job above working at Walmart.  That poorly done facial hair and crappy clothes do not lead to a hot and successful woman.  That greasy hair and endless tats make people cross the street to avoid them.  

You forgot to mention the horrible, unlistenable music.

[Tiberius]

37 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

 

 

  If you haven't caught on yet, I am a big believer on transparency in government.  I understand there are some secrets that have to be held based on national security concerns, but the bottom line is everyone in that city works for us and are accountable to us, the citizens.

It's the only way a republic can function properly 

[SectionC3]

46 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

As for Kavanaugh, I think it was bad.   I don't necessarily agree with his judicial views, but presidents get to pick their justices and having an 11th hour woman who had no real evidence of his misconduct was wrong.  And I say that as one who has daughters and is firmly on the side of women who, if they feel they have been wronged, should be encouraged to come forward and who should be heard.  They just should have some evidence in support.  Same thing with this Reid woman and Biden.

 

Garland I thought was ridiculous for the same reason.  The president has the right to send up nominees for the court, it's his constitutional responsibility.  And they should be considered by the Senate.  I am not a big fan of professional politicians and McConnell to me is the slimiest of the current bunch.  Because he has already stated he would seat someone this year before the election.  

 

Going back to what I would do if I were Obama, or if I had been Trump last fall, I absolutely agree with innocent before proven guilty, a bedrock of our legal foundation.  what I am saying is that if I knew I was innocent, and a Congressional committee, using its oversight authority, called  my staff as witnesses (or even myself), I would have no problem having myself or them testify.  Because I would know I was innocent, and from a more political perspective I know it would look really bad on the opposing party.

I believe IG's should be independent, or else they have no real authority.  If you haven't caught on yet, I am a big believer on transparency in government.  I understand there are some secrets that have to be held based on national security concerns, but the bottom line is everyone in that city works for us and are accountable to us, the citizens.

Agreed on 11th hour.  Kavanaugh is a d-bag, but the time to try to play that card against him had passed.  Elections have consequences, and the Republicans got to pick their guy.  That’s the way it goes. 

 

Disagreed on “real evidence.”  She had her (powerful) testimony, which in many cases like this is just about all that the victim can come up with.  

[Bill from NYC]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

So, if it was a different Democrat you would have voted for that person? 

 

Can you name several Democrats that are better than Trump right now? 

Sorry (I suppose) if this offends you, but I am shocked to see a post from you that makes even a molecule of sense.

 

The above was indeed a fair, intelligent question, one that might even be asked by a person who was not a brainwashed, robotic, blind sheep.

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Nice try hot shot. If you are correct, then why is the wall being built?  Go sell your 'expertise' somewhere else.

 

The Sierra Club case didn’t result in an injunction.  I don’t know the status of the “other” case challenging the constitutionality of the reprogramming.  The direct answer to your question, though, is that agencies and other entities subject to the the control of the executive branch are following the directive of their superior to construct a wall using monies that were not constitutionally obtained and the courts have not had proper occasion to enjoin the construction.  

 

 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Bill from NYC said:

Sorry (I suppose) if this offends you, but I am shocked to see a post from you that makes even a molecule of sense.

 

The above was indeed a fair, intelligent question, one that might even be asked by a person who was not a brainwashed, robotic, blind sheep.

My neighbor's dog has walked down here and the owners are calling for it and it won't come, lol. Cute dog, just wants to hang out I guess. I think it saw me cutting grass and came over. 

[oldmanfan]

16 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Agreed on 11th hour.  Kavanaugh is a d-bag, but the time to try to play that card against him had passed.  Elections have consequences, and the Republicans got to pick their guy.  That’s the way it goes. 

 

Disagreed on “real evidence.”  She had her (powerful) testimony, which in many cases like this is just about all that the victim can come up with.  

Understand.  I’m not sure what the best way is to say that.  If it were my daughter I’d believe her, but when nothing has been said for decades and then it comes up what do you do?  My daughter and I have discussed and even she struggles with it.  How do you go back 20 years and then make claims of misconduct?

[SoCal Deek]

25 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 Kavanaugh is a d-bag,

 

And you know this how?

[SectionC3]

6 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Understand.  I’m not sure what the best way is to say that.  If it were my daughter I’d believe her, but when nothing has been said for decades and then it comes up what do you do?  My daughter and I have discussed and even she struggles with it.  How do you go back 20 years and then make claims of misconduct?

 

It’s hard to do such things.  Normally you wouldn’t see a “stale” claim like this because the criminal and civil statutes of limitation would have run. The Kavanaugh instance was an outlier; apparently somebody who felt strongly about something terrible that happened earlier in her life felt compelled to speak up about it when the career arc of the alleged perpetrator became too much for her to handle.  We also see it in aged cases involving child sexual abuse perpetrated by members of religious orders.  But the bottom line is something this stale normally doesn’t come up because there’s no incentive for the alleged victim to “out” himself or herself as a victim of sexual abuse. 

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

And you know this how?

 

It’s impossible to know such a thing.  But it is possible to have an opinion.  My opinion is based on his poor, defiant temperament, my belief in his accuser’s testimony, the general story of his formative years and professional background that was told through his confirmation proceeding, and my intuition (based in part on the coupling of his background with his hiring practices) that he is not a good guy. 

[Bill from NYC]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

It’s hard to do such things.  Normally you wouldn’t see a “stale” claim like this because the criminal and civil statutes of limitation would have run. The Kavanaugh instance was an outlier; apparently somebody who felt strongly about something terrible that happened earlier in her life felt compelled to speak up about it when the career arc of the alleged perpetrator became too much for her to handle.  We also see it in aged cases involving child sexual abuse perpetrated by members of religious orders.  But the bottom line is something this stale normally doesn’t come up because there’s no incentive for the alleged victim to “out” himself or herself as a victim of sexual abuse. 

Do you remember the envelope that was handed to her and caught on film? Or, when she claimed to have fear of flying except for when she was on vacation? How about zero confirmation from her "witnesses?" Her details of the event also were impossible to believe.  They made no sense at all.

Biden is all over you tube molesting women and little girls. He puts his mouth on their hair and talks of little kids rubbing his leg hair in a pool. Don't you see these things?

 

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, Bill from NYC said:

Do you remember the envelope that was handed to her and caught on film? Or, when she claimed to have fear of flying except for when she was on vacation? How about zero confirmation from her "witnesses?" Her details of the event also were impossible to believe.  They made no sense at all.

Biden is all over you tube molesting women and little girls. He puts his mouth on their hair and talks of little kids rubbing his leg hair in a pool. Don't you see these things?

 

 

“Molesting” is an intentionally incendiary word and, in any event, Joe Biden is not the issue here.  

 

I watched a lot of the Kavanaugh hearings, and I listened to the entirety of them.  I’ve also worked a fair number of sexual assault cases.  I believe his accuser.  

 

***

 

Two additional points.  

 

1.  Someone can fear flying but still take a plane.   The two aren’t mutually exclusive.  

 

2.  Corroboration is of course preferred but not essential in a sexual assault case.  The very nature of the act often does not lend itself to corroboration.  Google the “prompt outcry” rule.  You’ll find that courts are lenient on admitting such evidence (the outcry sometimes is far from what most would consider prompt) because of the shame in disclosing a sexual assault to another person.  

[SoCal Deek]

19 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

It’s impossible to know such a thing.  But it is possible to have an opinion.  My opinion is based on his poor, defiant temperament, my belief in his accuser’s testimony, the general story of his formative years and professional background that was told through his confirmation proceeding, and my intuition (based in part on the coupling of his background with his hiring practices) that he is not a good guy. 

Wow!  This is one of the problems with the internet and social media.  You've formed and espouse an 'opinion' of someone that you know virtually nothing about and I'm guessing you've never met.  So much of an opinion that you label this man to be a d-bag?  Now, I can see using that phrase to reference Rex Ryan (it's a Bills chat after all ) but a Supreme Court judge?  Really?

[SectionC3]

7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Wow!  This is one of the problems with the internet and social media.  You've formed and espouse an 'opinion' of someone that you know virtually nothing about and I'm guessing you've never met.  So much of an opinion that you label this man to be a d-bag?  Now, I can see using that phrase to reference Rex Ryan (it's a Bills chat after all ) but a Supreme Court judge?  Really?

Really.  Normally the higher you get the better the people are (someone who gets that high usually has to be likable).  The fact that I feel that way about Kavanaugh should tell you something.  To me the worst part of the hearing wasnt the Ford testimony.  It was Kavanaugh’s response and his awful temperament. 

Edited May 21, 2020 by SectionC3