A man you can bait with a Tweet

[Nebfanatic]

10 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

I skimmed them. The optics are not good. But it takes more than optics to prove actual wrongdoing... 

It takes more than skimming to prove actual wrongdoing too

[ActualCornHusker]

Just now, Nebfanatic said:

It takes more than skimming to prove actual wrongdoing too

 

LOL k

[Danny Bateman]

Interesting watching a pro-Trump conservative bicker with anti-Trump conservatives (and non-cons alike).

 

Obama received just as much if not more unfair media scrutiny than has Trump. Trump brings most of the scrutiny on himself by being a loudmouthed liar. The primary difference is that Obama and his supporters accepted it, probably laughed about it & moved on. Trump & his supporters exist in perpetual victimhood and use it as another reason to circle the wagons rather than asking if some of the criticism is deserved.

 

Trump is laughably corrupt. It's not a question. Also President Hillary going to war with the Norks is the most absurd suggestion I've read around these parts in some time.

 

There's just... no effin' incentive for any president to do that. Nothing would be gained and millions of civilians would perish.

[ActualCornHusker]

27 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

Interesting watching a pro-Trump conservative bicker with anti-Trump conservatives (and non-cons alike).

 

Obama received just as much if not more unfair media scrutiny than has Trump. Trump brings most of the scrutiny on himself by being a loudmouthed liar. The primary difference is that Obama and his supporters accepted it, probably laughed about it & moved on. Trump & his supporters exist in perpetual victimhood and use it as another reason to circle the wagons rather than asking if some of the criticism is deserved.

 

Trump is laughably corrupt. It's not a question. Also President Hillary going to war with the Norks is the most absurd suggestion I've read around these parts in some time.

 

Who's the pro-Trump conservative? 

[Danny Bateman]

4 hours ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Who's the pro-Trump conservative? 

 

I mean, you said you find him ridiculous, but you've spent the last several pages of this thread defending him and excusing bad behavior because of this or that.  You've said you think a Clinton White House would be 10x worse than Trump's, saying the media gives him a raw deal, pointing out how bad Democrats are and apparently arguing Jared and Ivanka somehow are deserving of the positions lavished upon them by sheer nepotism.

 

What's the phrase?

 

 

[ActualCornHusker]

4 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

I mean, you said you find him ridiculous, but you've spent the last several pages of this thread defending him and excusing bad behavior because of this or that.  You've said you think a Clinton White House would be 10x worse than Trump's, saying the media would gives him a raw deal, pointing out how bad Democrats are and apparently arguing Jared and Ivanka somehow are deserving of the positions lavished upon them by sheer nepotism.

 

What's the phrase?

 

 

 

- didn't excuse behavior, just pointing out observations and facts that I see as apparent

- Clinton would undoubtedly have been horrendous. I stand by that

-I didn't say Jared & Ivanka deserve those positions

 

Also not a conservative. I said fiscally conservative. Socially I'd be very liberal - not modern liberal leftist, but the classic meaning of the word liberal. 

 

I'm searching for someone - anyone - to vote for to get Trump out. The problem is we've got a 2 party system that perpetuates horrible options. The only Dems I'd even consider voting for would be Tulsi or (this one would be a major stretch) Yang

[Moiraine]

4 hours ago, Moiraine said:

Obama was under as much or more scrutiny than Trump is. There was just less to scrutinize because he wasn’t a piece of s#!t of a person. 

 

 

It's hilarious that someone found this funny. If one person does 1,000 s#!tty things and people call them out for 900 of them, and someone else does 100 s#!tty things and people call them out for 90 of them, the 2 people were under the same amount of scrutiny.

 

And that's not even getting into how s#!tty the things are.

[Danny Bateman]

7 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

- didn't excuse behavior, just pointing out observations and facts that I see as apparent

- Clinton would undoubtedly have been horrendous. I stand by that

-I didn't say Jared & Ivanka deserve those positions

 

Also not a conservative. I said fiscally conservative. Socially I'd be very liberal - not modern liberal leftist, but the classic meaning of the word liberal. 

 

I'm searching for someone - anyone - to vote for to get Trump out. The problem is we've got a 2 party system that perpetuates horrible options. The only Dems I'd even consider voting for would be Tulsi or (this one would be a major stretch) Yang

 

OK. Not a ton of classical liberals running around. That sounds almost libertarian to me. In which case I see why Yang appeals to you.

 

Go ahead and vote for whomever you like the best. I'm assuming you're actually in a statistically pretty small group and thus a vote for a fringe candidate won't matter all that much.

 

You'll get no argument from me - our electoral system blows. I've just always leaned pragmatic with my choices.

[ActualCornHusker]

4 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

OK. Not a ton of classical liberals running around. That sounds almost libertarian to me. In which case I see why Yang appeals to you.

 

Go ahead and vote for whomever you like the best. I'm assuming you're actually in a statistically pretty small group and thus a vote for a fringe candidate won't matter all that much.

 

You'll get no argument from me - our electoral system blows. I've just always leaned pragmatic with my choices.

 

I'm interested. How does pragmatism lead you toward far left candidates? 

[Danny Bateman]

6 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

I'm interested. How does pragmatism lead you toward far left candidates? 

 

My pragmatism leads me to vote for whichever Dem wins the nomination.

Earlier today I did a write up about the risks of nominating someone too far left. Just like there's risk in nominating someone seen as too establishment or moderate.

 

None are without flaws. But they're going to be the only one with a prayer of beating Trump.

[BigRedBuster]

@ActualCornHusker do you support the impeachment inquiry in the house?

[ActualCornHusker]

56 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

@ActualCornHusker do you support the impeachment inquiry in the house?

 

Tbh i haven't followed it much.  Sounds like it's a long shot in the Senate, and it's probably not the right hill to die on for the Dems but 

[BigRedBuster]

8 hours ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Tbh i haven't followed it much.  Sounds like it's a long shot in the Senate, and it's probably not the right hill to die on for the Dems but 

shouldn’t this be decided by what’s the right thing to do?

 

And, you admit you haven’t payed attention to what is proving how corrupt Trump is, but yet act like Trump is no worse than anyone else. 
 

interesting. 

[QMany]

8 hours ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Tbh i haven't followed it much.  Sounds like it's a long shot in the Senate, and it's probably not the right hill to die on for the Dems but 

 

On 7/25/2019 at 10:09 AM, QMany said:

Clinton was impeached in the House but acquitted in the Senate...

 

In the next election, approximately 13 months later, Republicans won the White House and retained the House.

 

Just because McConnell, Sasse, et al will abdicate their responsibilities does not mean impeachment will be a lost cause.

 

EDIT: Fun fact, Democrats have more Senate seats now (including the 2 independents that caucus with Democrats) than Republicans did during Clinton's trial.

 

[TGHusker]

Good morning from Tulsa - boy this thread took off big time 15 hours ago!!  

Long and short - Ignore Hillary - she is a diversion to actual corruption in the WH NOW.   Yes, she was corrupt before and there was obviously the potential for corruption in a Hillary WH based on her and Bill's record.  BUT - we don't need to look at her.  Look at the corruption that IS now.    That is what matters.  Anything else is a diversionary tactic by Trump and his supporters. 

 

To that point we have this article on how the WH is trying to flush out any and all whistle blowers.  We all know that the Trump justice dept wants to intimidate and tamper with any silent whistle blower. 

 

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Justice-Department-fishing-for-details-about-14809490.php

Quote

 

The Justice Department is looking for identifying details about the anonymous Trump administration official who excoriated the president's "amorality" in an unsigned New York Times opinion article last year, according to a letter the agency sent Monday.

The author of the column, whose identity has remained a secret for more than a year, has also written a book that will publish this month - and Assistant Attorney General Joseph Hunt wants proof that the writer is not bound by a government nondisclosure agreement.

Either that, Hunt wrote in the letter, or the book's publisher and the author's agents should turn over the official's employment information: where in the government the person worked, and when he or she worked there. If the official had access to classified information, Hunt warned, the book should be "submitted for pre-publication review."