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

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

50 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.

Fascinating, really, to me. Comparing a nomination that died on the vine due to political processes ( legal and acceptable) to branding a man a sexual predator and the lead party on a rape train....wow.  What the dems and their voters did to BK is beyond shameful. And to be completely honest, if what happened there is only "bad", then it might as well be mainstream.  If you as a conservative leaning independent see it as such, the next liberal nominee should, and unfortunately must be treated in kind. The worse the unsubstantiated rumor or allegation is, the better.  When it falls apart, after a man probably a lot like you who loves his daughters as much as you has been gutted on a national stage because of his political views, we can all lament that it was "bad". When a smart and ambitious female works hard and grows up to have an opportunity to sit on the Supreme Court, and some political operative comes out and accuses her of performing oral sex on a child in her care when a babysitter at age 16, we can all think...gee, too bad, buy wtf, shes a lib. 

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

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. 

So if I'm reading you correctly, you didn't like the fact that some lady he doesn't remember from back in high school, got on national television in front of his wife and small children and claimed he 'felt her up' at a party, and in your version of the world he should sit there unemotionally? You and I deal with things much differently.  I would be upset if he didn't show any temperament!

[oldmanfan]

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

Fascinating, really, to me. Comparing a nomination that died on the vine due to political processes ( legal and acceptable) to branding a man a sexual predator and the lead party on a rape train....wow.  What the dems and their voters did to BK is beyond shameful. And to be completely honest, if what happened there is only "bad", then it might as well be mainstream.  If you as a conservative leaning independent see it as such, the next liberal nominee should, and unfortunately must be treated in kind. The worse the unsubstantiated rumor or allegation is, the better.  When it falls apart, after a man probably a lot like you who loves his daughters as much as you has been gutted on a national stage because of his political views, we can all lament that it was "bad". When a smart and ambitious female works hard and grows up to have an opportunity to sit on the Supreme Court, and some political operative comes out and accuses her of performing oral sex on a child in her care when a babysitter at age 16, we can all think...gee, too bad, buy wtf, shes a lib. 

I do not know what you are referring to in the latter part of your post.  If that happened to a woman nominee I would agree with your stance but I have no knowledge of that happening?  I agree with you on Kavanaugh.  

 

We disagree on Garland.  To me that was neither legal nor acceptable.  Legal is not really a term to be used for that fiasco since there were no laws per se surrounding it.  But certainly unacceptable.  There was a vacant spot, the president nominates, the senate does advise and consent.  The senate did not do its constitutional job because of the slimeball from Ky.

[SectionC3]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

So if I'm reading you correctly, you didn't like the fact that some lady he doesn't remember from back in high school, got on national television in front of his wife and small children and claimed he 'felt her up' at a party, and in your version of the world he should sit there unemotionally? You and I deal with things much differently.  I would be upset if he didn't show any temperament!

Yup.  Assuming she testified either falsely or mistakenly, I thought his conduct was unbecoming a judge.  The proper course would have been to have apologized for the harm in her life and to steadfastly but calmly and assertively state that she identifies the wrong guy.  You wanna be a judge?  That’s how you’re supposed to act.  Not flipping pages like a lunatic, ranting about beer, and making up BS stories about the chauvinistic lies you put in your HS yearbook.
 

And since I believe her,  my general view is that the little show he put on was a lousy act.

[Deranged Rhino]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

I didn't think that was right either.

 

It was worse than anything Trump's been accused of by an order of magnitude. 

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It was worse than anything Trump's been accused of by an order of magnitude. 

Hoax. 

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It was worse than anything Trump's been accused of by an order of magnitude. 

 

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It was worse than anything Trump's been accused of by an order of magnitude. 

Wrong.  Again you think you are the expert theorist around here but every single tale of your is biased.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

 

Wrong.  Again you think you are the expert theorist around here but every single tale of your is biased.

 

You're upset because Trump fired four IGs he was legally allowed to fire. Obama didn't fire four IGs, he made ALL IGs irrelevant with a re-interpretation of the law, rendering any oversight impossible. This was done by the man who claimed to be "the most transparent president ever". This wasn't done for any other reason than to hide his corruption. 

 

How can you be upset by Trump and not outraged over this? 

 

I'll tell you how... you're full of it. And it shows. 

[SectionC3]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You're upset because Trump fired four IGs he was legally allowed to fire. Obama didn't fire four IGs, he made ALL IGs irrelevant with a re-interpretation of the law, rendering any oversight impossible. This was done by the man who claimed to be "the most transparent president ever". This wasn't done for any other reason than to hide his corruption. 

 

How can you be upset by Trump and not outraged over this? 

 

I'll tell you how... you're full of it. And it shows. 

 

Hoax.  He’s reasonable.  You’re on the washed up psycho list. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I mean, it's not like anyone died -- right? Oh. Wait...

 

 

With no IG at state (at all) to do anything about it. 

 

"BUT ORANGE MAN BAD!"

 

Get the ***** out'a here with that weak ass shite. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

I do not know what you are referring to in the latter part of your post.  If that happened to a woman nominee I would agree with your stance but I have no knowledge of that happening?  I agree with you on Kavanaugh.  

 

We disagree on Garland.  To me that was neither legal nor acceptable.  Legal is not really a term to be used for that fiasco since there were no laws per se surrounding it.  But certainly unacceptable.  There was a vacant spot, the president nominates, the senate does advise and consent.  The senate did not do its constitutional job because of the slimeball from Ky.

What I mean is pretty simple.  If labeling a man a predator, a deviant and the lead engineer of a rape train only raises to the level of "bad" politics in your mind, then it should be a tactic used by all.  If the vast majority of the public sees it as such, then there is no reason not to have an endless media freak show on every nominee.  When the next female candidate is nominated, something "bad" should be expected. 

 

You mentioned your daughter, I indicated i have one, also have two sons.  It's not just that I would hate to see any of them treated as BK was by Pelosi, Harris, Schumer, Biden, et al--to see their lives destroyed, reputations in ruins, having to explain to their own children "No honey, no I never participated in a gang rape, that's just what people say when they disagree with you politically". It's that I would hate to see it happen to Sotamayer, Ginzburg and everyone else.   I have a pretty basic rule. If they will do it to XXX, they'll do it to me. Or you. Or one of your daughters. 

 

It transcends bad. 

[oldmanfan]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You're upset because Trump fired four IGs he was legally allowed to fire. Obama didn't fire four IGs, he made ALL IGs irrelevant with a re-interpretation of the law, rendering any oversight impossible. This was done by the man who claimed to be "the most transparent president ever". This wasn't done for any other reason than to hide his corruption. 

 

How can you be upset by Trump and not outraged over this? 

 

I'll tell you how... you're full of it. And it shows. 

I just said above it was wrong.  The difference to me is Trump does it because he wants to be a dictator.  You disagree fine.  But I’m full of it?  You don’t like my posts because you’ve found a niche here where you can spout your Deep State talking points, and when you have someone that recognizes your biases for what they are and how they cloud your outlook you have a hissy fit.  

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

What I mean is pretty simple.  If labeling a man a predator, a deviant and the lead engineer of a rape train only raises to the level of "bad" politics in your mind, then it should be a tactic used by all.  If the vast majority of the public sees it as such, then there is no reason not to have an endless media freak show on every nominee.  When the next female candidate is nominated, something "bad" should be expected. 

 

You mentioned your daughter, I indicated i have one, also have two sons.  It's not just that I would hate to see any of them treated as BK was by Pelosi, Harris, Schumer, Biden, et al--to see their lives destroyed, reputations in ruins, having to explain to their own children "No honey, no I never participated in a gang rape, that's just what people say when they disagree with you politically". It's that I would hate to see it happen to Sotamayer, Ginzburg and everyone else.   I have a pretty basic rule. If they will do it to XXX, they'll do it to me. Or you. Or one of your daughters. 

 

It transcends bad. 

I get your point.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

I just said above it was wrong.  The difference to me is Trump does it because he wants to be a dictator.  

 

You think Obama removed the teeth from all the IG's because he wanted to be held accountable???!?! 

 

Do you even think before you type?

Just now, oldmanfan said:

 But I’m full of it? 

 

You're completely full of it. 

 

And a hypocrite. 

 

And real uninformed. You keep proving it. 

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

What I mean is pretty simple.  If labeling a man a predator, a deviant and the lead engineer of a rape train only raises to the level of "bad" politics in your mind, then it should be a tactic used by all.  If the vast majority of the public sees it as such, then there is no reason not to have an endless media freak show on every nominee.  When the next female candidate is nominated, something "bad" should be expected. 

 

You mentioned your daughter, I indicated i have one, also have two sons.  It's not just that I would hate to see any of them treated as BK was by Pelosi, Harris, Schumer, Biden, et al--to see their lives destroyed, reputations in ruins, having to explain to their own children "No honey, no I never participated in a gang rape, that's just what people say when they disagree with you politically". It's that I would hate to see it happen to Sotamayer, Ginzburg and everyone else.   I have a pretty basic rule. If they will do it to XXX, they'll do it to me. Or you. Or one of your daughters. 

 

It transcends bad. 

 

I agree with you to the extent you contend that it was too late to spike Kavanaugh on that issue, and that it sucked to do it to him on national TV in front of his family.  It was dirty politics bereft of concern for, among other things, even the victim. 

 

But I don’t feel terribly badly for him because I believe her.  He’s a d-bag, and while the proverbial statute ran on what he did, I’m not crying any tears for him. 

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

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. 

 

Or needed something to relieve himself on.   

[oldmanfan]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You think Obama removed the teeth from all the IG's because he wanted to be held accountable???!?! 

 

Do you even think before you type?

No I do not think Obama wanted to be a dictator.  Yes I think Trump does and the evidence of that to me is irrefutable.

 

On the topic of thinking, it is apparent you do not and only continually either parrot you deep state material or insult those who dare to call you out on it.  I think about things and have opinions you may not agree with.  You do not think about things and reflexively try to fit everything into your preconceived agenda.

[SectionC3]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You think Obama removed the teeth from all the IG's because he wanted to be held accountable???!?! 

 

Do you even think before you type?

 

You're completely full of it. 

 

And a hypocrite. 

 

And real uninformed. You keep proving it. 

 

Fake news.  This is why you’re on the washed up psycho list.  A couple of people arrived and disrupted your hoaxy deep state echo chamber and you don’t like it.  Too bad. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I agree with you to the extent you contend that it was too late to spike Kavanaugh on that issue, and that it sucked to do it to him on national TV in front of his family.  It was dirty politics bereft of concern for, among other things, even the victim. 

 

But I don’t feel terribly badly for him because I believe her.  He’s a d-bag, and while the proverbial statute ran on what he did, I’m not crying any tears for him. 

I don't care if you believe Ballsy Ford or not, it's irrelevant.  Some will believe, others will not.  The point was originally about "tribalism" and divisiveness.  

 

You do however make my point that if this is the new political landscape, then it is what it is.  Borque got Borqued, Thomas got Pepsi canned, Kavanaugh is the rape train guy, and so on.  We might as well keep playing.

 

Brett Kavanaugh is another American hero.  They tried to assassinate him and destroy his family and he told the dems, Ballsy Ford and everyone else to #@!! a $#@@.  Most people don't have that depth of character, but he did.  There's a trend here. 

 

Oh...you never answered my question on name calling and lost arguments.  Maybe you forgot? 

[Deranged Rhino]

10 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

No I do not think Obama wanted to be a dictator.  Yes I think Trump does and the evidence of that to me is irrefutable

 

And yet it was Obama, not Trump who: 

 

* Gutted the entire IG system, rewrote the law to hide his own crimes

* Used the IRS to target his political enemies

* Abused the surveillance tools to spy on Congress, the media, and the public without warrant or cause

* Actively tried to subvert the 2016 election because he disagreed with the people's choice... 

* Doubled the size of the secret courts

* Used drones to assassinate American citizens (in foreign lands) without consideration to their due process or civil rights

 

So, yeah, you're full of it. And you keep proving it. 

 

 

10 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

 

On the topic of thinking, it is apparent you do not and only continually either parrot you deep state material or insult those who dare to call you out on it. 

 

You have to have a basic understanding of the facts before you can call me out on anything. You've yet to do it. All you've done is excuse the biggest abuses of power in this country's history while pointing at Trump and screaming "MY FEELZ!"

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Deranged Rhino
I could keep adding to the list

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I don't care if you believe Ballsy Ford or not, it's irrelevant.  Some will believe, others will not.  The point was originally about "tribalism" and divisiveness.  

 

You do however make my point that if this is the new political landscape, then it is what it is.  Borque got Borqued, Thomas got Pepsi canned, Kavanaugh is the rape train guy, and so on.  We might as well keep playing.

 

Brett Kavanaugh is another American hero.  They tried to assassinate him and destroy his family and he told the dems, Ballsy Ford and everyone else to #@!! a $#@@.  Most people don't have that depth of character, but he did.  There's a trend here. 

 

Oh...you never answered my question on name calling and lost arguments.  Maybe you forgot? 

 

“Ballsy Ford?”  Not cool, and also not funny.

 

And no, I don’t recall either your question or its context. 

 

FYI - Clarence Thomas was a Coke can.  That had a ***** hair on it.  Allegedly. 

 

And Bork was spiked for professional reasons.  

 

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

And yet it was Obama, not Trump who: 

 

* Gutted the entire IG system, rewrote the law to hide his own crimes

* Used the IRS to target his political enemies

* Abused the surveillance tools to spy on Congress, the media, and the public without warrant or cause

* Actively tried to subvert the 2016 election because he disagreed with the people's choice... 

* Doubled the size of the secret courts

* Used drones to assassinate American citizens (in foreign lands) without consideration to their due process or civil rights

 

So, yeah, you're full of it. And you keep proving it. 

 

 

 

You have to have a basic understanding of the facts before you can call me out on anything. You've yet to do it. All you've done is excuse the biggest abuses of power in this country's history while pointing at Trump and screaming "MY FEELZ!"

 

And you keep parroting your same fake I know better than everyone else stuff like you are somehow more omniscient than everyone.  You’re not.  

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

And you keep parroting your same fake I know better than everyone else stuff like you are somehow more omniscient than everyone.  You’re not.  

 

You think that list is fake? 

 

Is that what you're saying?

[GG]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

And you keep parroting your same fake I know better than everyone else stuff like you are somehow more omniscient than everyone.  You’re not.  

 

Then it should be very easy to prove him wrong, point by point.

 

Ready, set, go.

Edited May 21, 2020 by GG

[oldmanfan]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You think that list is fake? 

 

Is that what you're saying?

 

1 minute ago, GG said:

 

The it should be very easy to prove him wrong, point by point.

 

Ready, set, go.

I came into this thread to answer the OP, which I did.  What you all consider fact remains to be shown as so by proper investigation.  Some people are having a fit right now about Graham and Johnson having hearings.  Not me.  That is how the facts will actually come out. Assuming subpoenas to the appropriate individuals are answered as they were not during the Ukraine hearings.  

 

Rhino claims facts.  He confuses his opinion, based on his deep state bias, as fact.  But even paranoid people have enemies.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

Rhino claims facts.  He confuses his opinion, based on his deep state bias, as fact. 

So, are you saying that list is fake or not? You called me a liar. Back it up. Show me point by point where what I said was “opinion” rather than fact. 
 

[GG]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

 

I came into this thread to answer the OP, which I did.  What you all consider fact remains to be shown as so by proper investigation.  Some people are having a fit right now about Graham and Johnson having hearings.  Not me.  That is how the facts will actually come out. Assuming subpoenas to the appropriate individuals are answered as they were not during the Ukraine hearings.  

 

Rhino claims facts.  He confuses his opinion, based on his deep state bias, as fact.  But even paranoid people have enemies.

 

I'll let Greggy argue the positions he laid out.   Would you agree that unilaterally tossing out bankruptcy law proceedings to achieve your desired outcome is a sign of dictatorship?

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

So, are you saying that list is fake or not? You called me a liar. Back it up. Show me point by point where what I said was “opinion” rather than fact. 
 

Everything you have there such as using the IRS to get back at enemies is your opinion.  You have a view of the world, that somehow there is this deep state conspiracy that the former administration used, and you interpret all things to fit your narrative.   They are not fact.  Fact will or will not be ascertained by actual investigation.

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

And you keep parroting your same fake I know better than everyone else stuff like you are somehow more omniscient than everyone.  You’re not.  

That list is not "fake."   Those are only some of the low-lights of the Obama administration.  

You may want to pick a topic, any topic, that has to do with the improprieties of the Obama administration (don't even start with sedition, start small with oh, his  using the IRS to target political opposition (heck, just look at the tea party... that one is easy to see what he had the IRS do), or perhaps, spying on political  opponents) and do some deep diving into source documents on  that subject.   You should be appalled by what you find. 

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

That list is not "fake."   Those are only some of the low-lights of the Obama administration.  

You may want to pick a topic, any topic, that has to do with the improprieties of the Obama administration (don't even start with sedation, start small with oh, his  using the IRS to target political opposition (heck, just look at the tea party... that one is easy to see what he had the IRS do), or perhaps, spying on political  opponents) and do some deep diving into source documents on  that subject.   You should be appalled by what you find. 

 

From what I can tell on this side of the board, diving into source documents equates to finding sources that back your preconceived opinion.  I on the other hand will wait for actual congressional investigations if and when they take place.

[Buffalo_Gal]

7 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Everything you have there such as using the IRS to get back at enemies is your opinion.  You have a view of the world, that somehow there is this deep state conspiracy that the former administration used, and you interpret all things to fit your narrative.   They are not fact.  Fact will or will not be ascertained by actual investigation.

Here, use these real conservative sites  to read about the IRS scandal:

treasury.gov report

Lois Learner pleads the 5th!!  and then they allowed her a soliloquy 
 

IRS Apologizes For Aggressive Scrutiny Of Conservative Groups<--- npr.org
 

IRS Scandal Fast Facts<--- cnn.com

 

 

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

From what I can tell on this side of the board, diving into source documents equates to finding sources that back your preconceived opinion.  I on the other hand will wait for actual congressional investigations if and when they take place.

Oh good! Then you will love the treasury document above. ?



 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal

[oldmanfan]

5 minutes ago, GG said:

 

I'll let Greggy argue the positions he laid out.   Would you agree that unilaterally tossing out bankruptcy law proceedings to achieve your desired outcome is a sign of dictatorship?

Did a little quick search on this.  Obama wanted the law changed to ease burden on consumers?  And did not make an executive order from what I could see.  If that is incorrect send along the info for me to look at.

 

And no, I would not say this would equate to dictator.  Presidents want what they want.  Trump takes it to extremes.  I believe he wants to operate without either the legislative ir judicial branch inhibiting him whatsoever.  My opinion of course, but that to me would destroy our country.

[GG]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

From what I can tell on this side of the board, diving into source documents equates to finding sources that back your preconceived opinion.  I on the other hand will wait for actual congressional investigations if and when they take place.

 

You seem to be taking the position that if there were no criminal indictments, then the action did not take place.

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, GG said:

 

You seem to be taking the position that if there were no criminal indictments, then the action did not take place.

I am taking the point that if there are transgressions in the executive branch that you have both the legislative and judicial branches to execute proper oversight and if required legal action.

[GG]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

Did a little quick search on this.  Obama wanted the law changed to ease burden on consumers?  And did not make an executive order from what I could see.  If that is incorrect send along the info for me to look at.

 

And no, I would not say this would equate to dictator.  Presidents want what they want.  Trump takes it to extremes.  I believe he wants to operate without either the legislative ir judicial branch inhibiting him whatsoever.  My opinion of course, but that to me would destroy our country.

 

I was referring to Obama upendng the automakers' bankruptcy proceedings by turning bankruptcy law on its head.  Nobody in the press cared, because he did it for the "right" reasons.   But people who care about standing laws being upheld, cared a lot and lost any hope for the Presidency.  They were proven right by his blatant disregard for standing laws.

 

And therein is the difference between Obama & Trump.  People take Trump's words literally, even though he does not follow through on his verbal outbursts - case in point is the proclamation that he's the one who gets to decide when states open up.  It's the opposite of what Obama did, which was not say anything about subverting laws, and then do what he wanted to do, knowing there was almost no pushback from a supplicant press.

[oldmanfan]

6 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Here, use these real conservative sites  to read about the IRS scandal:

treasury.gov report

Lois Learner pleads the 5th!!  and then they allowed her a soliloquy 
 

IRS Apologizes For Aggressive Scrutiny Of Conservative Groups<--- npr.org
 

IRS Scandal Fast Facts<--- cnn.com

 

 

Oh good! Then you will love the treasury document above. ?



 

An example of what I want done.  An abuse of power by an agency under the Executive branch, properly investigated by the legislative branch.

 

Let me remind you I did not vote for Obama.

1 minute ago, GG said:

 

I was referring to Obama upendng the automakers' bankruptcy proceedings by turning bankruptcy law on its head.  Nobody in the press cared, because he did it for the "right" reasons.   But people who care about standing laws being upheld, cared a lot and lost any hope for the Presidency.  They were proven right by his blatant disregard for standing laws.

 

And therein is the difference between Obama & Trump.  People take Trump's words literally, even though he does not follow through on his verbal outbursts - case in point is the proclamation that he's the one who gets to decide when states open up.  It's the opposite of what Obama did, which was not say anything about subverting laws, and then do what he wanted to do, knowing there was almost no pushback from a supplicant press.

I’ll have to check this out.

1 minute ago, GG said:

 

I was referring to Obama upendng the automakers' bankruptcy proceedings by turning bankruptcy law on its head.  Nobody in the press cared, because he did it for the "right" reasons.   But people who care about standing laws being upheld, cared a lot and lost any hope for the Presidency.  They were proven right by his blatant disregard for standing laws.

 

And therein is the difference between Obama & Trump.  People take Trump's words literally, even though he does not follow through on his verbal outbursts - case in point is the proclamation that he's the one who gets to decide when states open up.  It's the opposite of what Obama did, which was not say anything about subverting laws, and then do what he wanted to do, knowing there was almost no pushback from a supplicant press.

Maybe it’s time the current president realize his words have meaning.

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

An example of what I want done.  An abuse of power by an agency under the Executive branch, properly investigated by the legislative branch.

 

Let me remind you I did not vote for Obama.

Clearly, I am wasting my time. You do not want to see the facts. You do not care about the facts. The only question I still have is if you are trolling, or if you enjoy being willfully ignorant? 

 

[GG]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

 

Maybe it’s time the current president realize his words have meaning.

 

That ship sailed 50 years ago, and got more potent after that style won the highest job in the world.

[oldmanfan]

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

Clearly, I am wasting my time. You do not want to see the facts. You do not care about the facts. The only question I still have is if you are trolling, or if you enjoy being willfully ignorant? 

 

Well this is brilliant on your part.  I looked at it and agreed with you.  The IRS did something wrong here, the legislative branch examined it and brought it to light, and folks got fired.

 

You are apparently so locked into your preconceived views on things you can’t see the forest for the trees so I will say it again.

 

1.  I did not vote for Obama therefore I have no specific allegiance to him

2.  I am for our constitution and 3 co-equal branches of government each overseeing the other.

 

2 minutes ago, GG said:

 

That ship sailed 50 years ago, and got more potent after that style won the highest job in the world.

Sadly

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

Well this is brilliant on your part.  I looked at it and agreed with you.  The IRS did something wrong here, the legislative branch examined it and brought it to light, and folks got fired.

 

You are apparently so locked into your preconceived views on things you can’t see the forest for the trees so I will say it again.

 

1.  I did not vote for Obama therefore I have no specific allegiance to him

2.  I am for our constitution and 3 co-equal branches of government each overseeing the other.

 

Sadly

You agreed with me? M'kay. If that was what that was supposed to be. 

1. Like Nixon, I know no one who voted for Obama. ?
2. Agreed
 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

 

“Ballsy Ford?”  Not cool, and also not funny.

 

And no, I don’t recall either your question or its context. 

 

FYI - Clarence Thomas was a Coke can.  That had a ***** hair on it.  Allegedly. 

 

And Bork was spiked for professional reasons.  

 

Sorry, "Ms."  Ballsy Ford.  

 

You believed her, and feel no empathy for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.  I take no issue with that, though I think you're wrong.  I think she fabricated a story, played the system for political gain, and when Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh drew a line in the sand, she went away back to Scumbagville.  Thankfully, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed, and in some small way my voice was heard and my vote mattered.  Ms. Ballsy Ford is my enemy, not unlike the Iranian government,  Bernie Sanders and the Shamwow guy from days past. 

 

Thanks for the update on the soda choice of nefarious accusers.  I find them interchangeable, and as such I'm not much of a brand loyalist. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd