CSNbbs

Full Version: Trump Administration
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656
Tanq every day: nothing is my fault and you are extremely stupid
(08-23-2019 09:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Poor innocent, naive, not in touch with the real world Kamala. (the implication from 93). Yeah, my ass. Kind of goes against the grain of everything people know about her.

Actually, although she is older and more experienced now, I agree that she was/is naive and not in touch with the real world, still.

I thought the sexual harassment laws were to protect young naive people.

I think she was naive then, and is relatively (for a president) naive now. JMHO, WIASATH.

Hope this was stated in terms acceptable to everybody.

I would probably like here better if she had deliberately used her body to achieve a career path. At least that would indicate some planning, some ruthlessness, some willingness to do whatever it takes to get the job done. Goal directed, at the least. I don't care about the morals - that is just the stereotype of the religious right the left likes to lean on.
(08-23-2019 09:50 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]Tanq every day: nothing is my fault and you are extremely stupid

I guess you missed this:

Quote:Did I misinterpret *your* indistinct pronoun? Well yes I did. Mea culpa.
(08-23-2019 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2019 09:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Poor innocent, naive, not in touch with the real world Kamala. (the implication from 93). Yeah, my ass. Kind of goes against the grain of everything people know about her.

Actually, although she is older and more experienced now, I agree that she was/is naive and not in touch with the real world, still.

I thought the sexual harassment laws were to protect young naive people.

I think she was naive then, and is relatively (for a president) naive now. JMHO, WIASATH.

Hope this was stated in terms acceptable to everybody.

I'm comfortable basing my opinion of what her place on the naivete/conniving spectrum for that, and other situations, off of people that worked with her in the DA office at that time, and later, and with whom I have discussed this with.
(08-23-2019 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2019 09:50 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]Tanq every day: nothing is my fault and you are extremely stupid

I guess you missed this:

Quote:Did I misinterpret *your* indistinct pronoun? Well yes I did. Mea culpa.

Looks like Fountains misinterpreted your mea culpa for "nothing is my fault".
(08-23-2019 10:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2019 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2019 09:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Poor innocent, naive, not in touch with the real world Kamala. (the implication from 93). Yeah, my ass. Kind of goes against the grain of everything people know about her.

Actually, although she is older and more experienced now, I agree that she was/is naive and not in touch with the real world, still.

I thought the sexual harassment laws were to protect young naive people.

I think she was naive then, and is relatively (for a president) naive now. JMHO, WIASATH.

Hope this was stated in terms acceptable to everybody.

I'm comfortable basing my opinion of what her place on the naivete/conniving spectrum for that, and other situations, off of people that worked with her in the DA office at that time, and later, and with whom I have discussed this with.

She worries me, because I think she would be just a figurehead President, and because I think she is nominate-able and if nominated, possibly electable. But others worry me more. Specifically. Warren

Aside: did you see the video of Warren "dancing"? Makes GWB look fluid and balanced. I bet Kamala would win the dance-off.

Warren goes full Elaine

JMHO.
(08-23-2019 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2019 09:50 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]Tanq every day: nothing is my fault and you are extremely stupid

I guess you missed this:

Quote:Did I misinterpret *your* indistinct pronoun? Well yes I did. Mea culpa.

That mea culpa was snark and you know it.
OO:

I will definitely agree with you that I really dont care about the morality issue of Kamala doinking Willy to get ahead; or for that matter Willy doinking a very junior person because, in that position, he can.

And I dont care that Willy opened the door to Kamala politically, whether because he was smitten with her charm or just because she gave him a 60 year grin, or whether because she was an adept acolyte who could benefit from learning some ropes.

And even if it was a 'sugar daddy / sugar baby' arrangement I dont care --- lord knows I have seen more of that within government officials and very powerful people than I really care to remember.

But there are two things that I think are unusual about Kamala/Brown.

1) The absolute inability to actually call it for what it is/was. It was absolutely a sugar daddy / sugar baby arrangement --- one doesnt plop state commission nominations on seriously wet behind the ears 2 year attorneys. I dont care about the 'morality' of *that*, but people on one side of the aisle should be able to recognize it for what it was, and not go into contortions over the labeling of it as such.

2) The appointment to the commission isnt a moral problem --- but the use of 400k of state funds to pay the salaries is. Let's call it what it is --- it is an indirect payment for a sexual services. If it was limited to 'opening doors for her' with the appointments, Willy, let alone anyone, can extend that to anyone that they choose.

But when there is a payment of 400k by the state for it, then it evolves to a real issue.

And even a 2nd year attorney can realize that what Brown has a very real taint of corruption and illegality about it. They should. An attorney at the most influential DA office in the state of California absolutely should recognize the air of illegality to that. It is pretty much nepotism, simply change 'family member' to 'person I'm schtuffing'.

And yes, Willy is the brunt of any potential crime here. No doubt. But, asking that Kamala simply took the position/salary as naivete is really stretching it for me. Conversely, it doesnt say much that an attorney in DAs office would be *that* naive about the illegality of the act. On the other hand, it doesnt say much to the ethical fiber of someone (even more so an attorney at the DA) accepting such a position knowing the taint of illegality of the act. And yes, the person accepting the 'payoff' of state money does have a moral vestment in the corruptive act. Not as much as the donor, but one cannot escape that some moral vestment has to occur with the donee.

But please dont go down the absolute bull**** non-sequitor of 'we really dont know what happened'. The facts as they are dont require us to be a porno peeping Tom on the Willy Kamala bedsheet tango. State funds were used to pay a sex toy for a state position that she had no earthly background for. And, being a prosecutor at the most influential DA office in the state, absolutely had to realize the legal impropriety of the state funds issue. Those are really the only facts that are germane, notwithstanding the continual whitewashing by 93.
(08-23-2019 10:19 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2019 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2019 09:50 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]Tanq every day: nothing is my fault and you are extremely stupid

I guess you missed this:

Quote:Did I misinterpret *your* indistinct pronoun? Well yes I did. Mea culpa.

That mea culpa was snark and you know it.

Actually it was meant as a comment that I... uhhh.... misinterpreted it. Much as I admit to there. Cant get much blunter than that. What about that stark sentence escapes interpretation?
(08-23-2019 10:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2019 10:19 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2019 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2019 09:50 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]Tanq every day: nothing is my fault and you are extremely stupid

I guess you missed this:

Quote:Did I misinterpret *your* indistinct pronoun? Well yes I did. Mea culpa.

That mea culpa was snark and you know it.

Actually it was meant as a comment that I... uhhh.... misinterpreted it. Much as I admit to there. Cant get much blunter than that. What about that stark sentence escapes interpretation?

I detect an unwillingness to give the benefit of the doubt.
Quote:Me: What would *you* term the sex for advancement quid pro quo that seemingly occurred with that?

You: You seem to be the one who is confident in Harris' intentions when it comes to dating Brown. I'm not and that's why I'm not putting a name on it. If you wanted me to put a name on that generic situation I certainly wouldn't use the term "slut". "Sexual quid pro quo" is pretty good though.

I took your word 'that' to mean the situation we were talking about: Harris and Brown.

As to the 'misquote' -- to be blunt it was your use of an indistinct word 'that' that led to a confusion.

I didnt misquote anybody, asshat.

Not my problem if *you* use an indistinct pronoun that can easily be taken as a reference to the generic situation between Brown and Harris

Pull your fing head out of your ass, sparkles.

Did I misinterpret *your* indistinct pronoun? Well yes I did. Mea culpa. I suggest you use less indistinct verbiage.

At least be fing bright enough to recognize your own fing words. I recognize my misinterpretation of your words. But no, I did not misquote them. At *best* your sentence is horribly indistinct in what you are calling out there.

Sorry for assuming that your acknowledgement of error was not in earnest when it came book-ended by calling another poster an asshat and insulting their intelligence. Mea culpa.
I dont think implying someone of delberately changing words is overly friendly, thus the tone.

Conversly, there was very much a resulting error on my part. And it needed to be acknowledged. Notwithstanding your comment of my supposedly 'always being right'.

In deference I will readily admit to whatever errors on my part. Which were there. And admitted to.

But I will absolutely call out someone denoting me as misquoting with the distinct statement ('pretend') of it being intentionally deceptive. Coupled that that immediate call out as something intentionally deceptive is pretty gd stark contrast with that same poster's paeans to 'well...... none of us *really* know what happened.... we *shouldnt* rush to judgement....' whine in defense of his idols. But that is tangential. The singular issue for me is that he decided it was convenient to label me as intentionally deceptive, not that he did at the drop of a fking hat.

You call me brusque, blunt, an *******.... no problem. If you state that I am intentionally deceptive I will go out on you.

If you cant separate those concepts, to be blunt, not my problem.
(08-23-2019 10:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2019 10:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2019 10:19 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2019 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2019 09:50 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]Tanq every day: nothing is my fault and you are extremely stupid

I guess you missed this:

Quote:Did I misinterpret *your* indistinct pronoun? Well yes I did. Mea culpa.

That mea culpa was snark and you know it.

Actually it was meant as a comment that I... uhhh.... misinterpreted it. Much as I admit to there. Cant get much blunter than that. What about that stark sentence escapes interpretation?

I detect an unwillingness to give the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe I should change my name to Kamala Harris to engender that benefit of the doubt. That is seemingly a magic elixir and difference for some.
"always being right".

Of course, the only reason to argue is because we think we are right and those who disagree with us are wrong. This is true of all posters, A to Z., left or right, top to bottom. No point in arguing if we think we are wrong.

Once in a while, some of us may find out we were wrong about something. That is a good time to stop arguing.

Sometimes it may require an apology or a statement of correction. That usually happens when somebody has the facts wrong.

Once in a very great while, some of us may be persuaded by the arguments of another to change our opinion. That has happened to me, just not recently. But I did not use to believe that a fetus was a human being. I have been persuaded that it is, through argument and reflection.

I will continue to present my thoughts when I think I am right, and I presume everybody else, left and right, top to bottom, A to Z, will do the same.
(08-23-2019 11:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2019 10:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2019 10:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2019 10:19 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-23-2019 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I guess you missed this:

That mea culpa was snark and you know it.

Actually it was meant as a comment that I... uhhh.... misinterpreted it. Much as I admit to there. Cant get much blunter than that. What about that stark sentence escapes interpretation?

I detect an unwillingness to give the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe I should change my name to Kamala Harris to engender that benefit of the doubt. That is seemingly a magic elixir and difference for some.

This will work, definitely do this.




+

Those tweets are ridiculous. As I said a few weeks ago, Trump is getting more and more insane with each passing day.

Speaking of Moulton, he basically said it's down to a 3-person race in his concession speech - Biden, Warren and Sanders. The folks obsession here with Kamala Harris is amazing. She isn't going to be the nominee. Mayor Pete has already caught her in some of the polls, and Yang isn't too far behind.
(08-23-2019 04:13 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Those tweets are ridiculous. As I said a few weeks ago, Trump is getting more and more insane with each passing day.

Speaking of Moulton, he basically said it's down to a 3-person race in his concession speech - Biden, Warren and Sanders. The folks obsession here with Kamala Harris is amazing. She isn't going to be the nominee. Mayor Pete has already caught her in some of the polls, and Yang isn't too far behind.

I hope that you are right about Harris, and I also hope Moulton is wrong about the final three.

But of course, what I really hope for is four more years of Trump. Those final three might just lock it in for him.

***I wonder how long this thread gets if the "Trump Administration" lasts eight years. It might someday provide an historical record. The first part of his term could be labeled "The Russia Hoax".
(08-23-2019 04:13 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Those tweets are ridiculous. As I said a few weeks ago, Trump is getting more and more insane with each passing day.

All the candidates are tweeting, and that appears to be the new wave of political communication.

I think it is insane to follow a socialist agenda, or to give Iran the bomb, but heck, that's just me. I'm not the one who fell for the "children in cages" meme only to find the cages were built during the the Obama-BIDEN administration.
(08-23-2019 11:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]"always being right".

Of course, the only reason to argue is because we think we are right and those who disagree with us are wrong. This is true of all posters, A to Z., left or right, top to bottom. No point in arguing if we think we are wrong.

Once in a while, some of us may find out we were wrong about something. That is a good time to stop arguing.

Sometimes it may require an apology or a statement of correction. That usually happens when somebody has the facts wrong.

Once in a very great while, some of us may be persuaded by the arguments of another to change our opinion. That has happened to me, just not recently. But I did not use to believe that a fetus was a human being. I have been persuaded that it is, through argument and reflection.

I will continue to present my thoughts when I think I am right, and I presume everybody else, left and right, top to bottom, A to Z, will do the same.

Just read this passage in a Dean Koontz book:

"These days, most people avoided thinking, especially about the future. They preferred the comfort of blind convictions to clear-eyed thought."

I am sure the left and right here will both think this is a good description of the other.

Of course, I wouldn't say so if I didn't think I was right.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656
Reference URL's