(09-22-2018 12:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 12:02 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Put out an ad tomorrow with Beto in night vision goggles shooting hogs with an AR15. Fade to a BBQ pit.

Cruz response is: play Robert's own clip of him playing with guns, then play the clip where Robert is calling explicitly for an 'assault weapon' ban. Then the tag: 'Which O'Rourke is he today'. No spoken words necessary in the commercial.

Then you have Cruz winning by 12-14 instead of 6.

Or you have a repeat of Dukakis playing tank driver.

Sorry, O'Rourke has self-written the script to preclude that avenue at the present time.

As bad as the photo of Dukakis in the Tank was, the John Kerry in the Space Shuttle was worse.

(09-22-2018 01:10 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 12:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 12:02 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Put out an ad tomorrow with Beto in night vision goggles shooting hogs with an AR15. Fade to a BBQ pit.

Cruz response is: play Robert's own clip of him playing with guns, then play the clip where Robert is calling explicitly for an 'assault weapon' ban. Then the tag: 'Which O'Rourke is he today'. No spoken words necessary in the commercial.

Then you have Cruz winning by 12-14 instead of 6.

Or you have a repeat of Dukakis playing tank driver.

Sorry, O'Rourke has self-written the script to preclude that avenue at the present time.

As bad as the photo of Dukakis in the Tank was, the John Kerry in the Space Shuttle was worse.

The tank driving is known as the worst political move ever. The resulting ad known as one of the most effective ever.





Enough to make a short on it:

(09-22-2018 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  One thing I forgot from last night: Robert missed a golden opportunity to pin Cruz, and pin him pretty badly. I realized this when Cruz and Robert were talking on the pot/drugs issue.

Cruz started his lash at Robert's 'debate on all narcotics' with this paraphrased quote: "I lean to a slight libertarian bent on the issue. What Colorado decides to do with marijuana may be completely different than what Texas wishes to do."

First, from a Senate debate, a complete non-answer. A US Senator from Texas plays no role in state power issues. But that wasnt the worst.

Had Robert not been obviously gut punched by the 'national debate' issue, the perfect response to Cruz would have been:

"I take it from your answer that Colorado and Texas should be able to have differing views on marijuana, I will take it that you support the decriminalization of marijuana at the Federal level."

There is *no* good out for Cruz from that retort. It forces Cruz to either support Federal criminalization (and make him a bald-faced liar in the space of two sentences) or it forces Cruz to support Federal decriminalization, something I suspect Cruz does not want to do for obvious reasons.

Right, pot legalization plays to the State's libertarian instincts and the gets stoners and under 30s off the couch into the booth.

AR15, hogs, night vision, wee tongue in cheek.

(09-22-2018 05:58 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  One thing I forgot from last night: Robert missed a golden opportunity to pin Cruz, and pin him pretty badly. I realized this when Cruz and Robert were talking on the pot/drugs issue.
Cruz started his lash at Robert's 'debate on all narcotics' with this paraphrased quote: "I lean to a slight libertarian bent on the issue. What Colorado decides to do with marijuana may be completely different than what Texas wishes to do."
First, from a Senate debate, a complete non-answer. A US Senator from Texas plays no role in state power issues. But that wasnt the worst.
Had Robert not been obviously gut punched by the 'national debate' issue, the perfect response to Cruz would have been:
"I take it from your answer that Colorado and Texas should be able to have differing views on marijuana, I will take it that you support the decriminalization of marijuana at the Federal level."
There is *no* good out for Cruz from that retort. It forces Cruz to either support Federal criminalization (and make him a bald-faced liar in the space of two sentences) or it forces Cruz to support Federal decriminalization, something I suspect Cruz does not want to do for obvious reasons.

Right, pot legalization plays to the State's libertarian instincts and the gets stoners and under 30s off the couch into the booth.
AR15, hogs, night vision, wee tongue in cheek.

I’m with Beto on this, but it’s not a show stopper for me. Beto has several positions that are absolute drop dead show stoppers for me.

(09-22-2018 06:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 05:58 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  One thing I forgot from last night: Robert missed a golden opportunity to pin Cruz, and pin him pretty badly. I realized this when Cruz and Robert were talking on the pot/drugs issue.
Cruz started his lash at Robert's 'debate on all narcotics' with this paraphrased quote: "I lean to a slight libertarian bent on the issue. What Colorado decides to do with marijuana may be completely different than what Texas wishes to do."
First, from a Senate debate, a complete non-answer. A US Senator from Texas plays no role in state power issues. But that wasnt the worst.
Had Robert not been obviously gut punched by the 'national debate' issue, the perfect response to Cruz would have been:
"I take it from your answer that Colorado and Texas should be able to have differing views on marijuana, I will take it that you support the decriminalization of marijuana at the Federal level."
There is *no* good out for Cruz from that retort. It forces Cruz to either support Federal criminalization (and make him a bald-faced liar in the space of two sentences) or it forces Cruz to support Federal decriminalization, something I suspect Cruz does not want to do for obvious reasons.

Right, pot legalization plays to the State's libertarian instincts and the gets stoners and under 30s off the couch into the booth.
AR15, hogs, night vision, wee tongue in cheek.

I’m with Beto on this, but it’s not a show stopper for me. Beto has several positions that are absolute drop dead show stoppers for me.

I also want to know from Robert what his economic and tax policies are.

https://betofortexas.com/issue/economy/

He does a great laundry list of goals. BF difference between goals and a plan. Hell, from that list, maybe I should run for office.....

My economic policy:
Everyone should have a job that pays their bills and that they love 6 days to Sunday.

Wow, what a *great* effin policy. Tanq in a landslide!!!!!

I *really* like this policy:

Quote:Ensuring no veteran goes homeless.

edward doesnt list unicorn farts that are great endpoints. He really doesnt list his goals in this respect either.

Compare Edward's Servicemen Page to "Ensuring no veteran goes homeless."

Going back to Jobs and the Economy:

Edwards CV Page:

Quote:The first bill Ted offered as a US Senator was to repeal every word of Obamacare.

Fought for Texas jobs by authoring the NASA Transition Authorization Act, which

President Trump signed into law on March 21, 2017.

Authored legislation empowering greater private sector engagement in commercial space exploration that was signed into law by President Obama.

Sponsored Audit the Fed legislation.

Authored resolution, signed by President Trump, eliminating Obama-era rules that restricted Texas’ discretion over its unemployment insurance programs.

Proposed a tax plan to dramatically reduce taxes for American families and individuals, simplify the tax code and spur significant economic growth.

Mobilized a national effort to defund Obamacare and repeal the disastrous law in its entirety.

Introduced the American Energy Renaissance Act to open up energy exploration, expand Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) exports, end the crude oil export ban, that with other reforms unleashed job creation across the state of Texas.

Sponsored the Affordable Reliable Energy Now Act (ARENA), to check President

Obama’s overreaching “Clean Power Plan” regulations that infringe on states’ rights, drive up costs for consumers and hamper innovation.

Fought against budget increases that failed to bring about meaningful spending reforms.

Opposed the Internet Sales Tax, and spoke against establishment politicians who attempt to impose more unnecessary taxes on Americans.

Roberts "policy" page (all of them, mind you, to be fair):

Quote:Promote policies that encourage companies to focus on returning investments back to their consumer, their employees, and to the community.

Lower the barrier to entry for small businesses so that every entrepreneur or emerging growth company can have an opportunity to be successful.

Promote regulations that protect consumers, promote competition and grow the economy.

Support stronger antitrust regulations that break up monopolies and trusts that stifle competition and innovation.

I am glad that Robert is on that really awesome specific policy of "Promote regulations that protect consumers, promote competition and grow the economy."

Hey, but Robert has a much cuter toothier smile....

I mean, reverse the party affiliation and this to me hits perfectly. (wish I could find the video of Dana Garvey's Bush bleating 'thousand points of light' that preceded Lovitz here...)

Quote:Diane Sawyer: You still have, uh, fifty seconds left, Mr. Vice-President.

George Bush: Let me just sum up. On track, stay the course. A thousand points of light. Stay the course.

Diane Sawyer: Mm-hmm. Governor Dukakis. Rebuttal?

Michael Dukakis: I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!

(09-22-2018 06:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 05:58 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  One thing I forgot from last night: Robert missed a golden opportunity to pin Cruz, and pin him pretty badly. I realized this when Cruz and Robert were talking on the pot/drugs issue.
Cruz started his lash at Robert's 'debate on all narcotics' with this paraphrased quote: "I lean to a slight libertarian bent on the issue. What Colorado decides to do with marijuana may be completely different than what Texas wishes to do."
First, from a Senate debate, a complete non-answer. A US Senator from Texas plays no role in state power issues. But that wasnt the worst.
Had Robert not been obviously gut punched by the 'national debate' issue, the perfect response to Cruz would have been:
"I take it from your answer that Colorado and Texas should be able to have differing views on marijuana, I will take it that you support the decriminalization of marijuana at the Federal level."
There is *no* good out for Cruz from that retort. It forces Cruz to either support Federal criminalization (and make him a bald-faced liar in the space of two sentences) or it forces Cruz to support Federal decriminalization, something I suspect Cruz does not want to do for obvious reasons.

Right, pot legalization plays to the State's libertarian instincts and the gets stoners and under 30s off the couch into the booth.
AR15, hogs, night vision, wee tongue in cheek.

I’m with Beto on this, but it’s not a show stopper for me. Beto has several positions that are absolute drop dead show stoppers for me.

What are those show stoppers?

(09-22-2018 06:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 06:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 05:58 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  One thing I forgot from last night: Robert missed a golden opportunity to pin Cruz, and pin him pretty badly. I realized this when Cruz and Robert were talking on the pot/drugs issue.
Cruz started his lash at Robert's 'debate on all narcotics' with this paraphrased quote: "I lean to a slight libertarian bent on the issue. What Colorado decides to do with marijuana may be completely different than what Texas wishes to do."
First, from a Senate debate, a complete non-answer. A US Senator from Texas plays no role in state power issues. But that wasnt the worst.
Had Robert not been obviously gut punched by the 'national debate' issue, the perfect response to Cruz would have been:
"I take it from your answer that Colorado and Texas should be able to have differing views on marijuana, I will take it that you support the decriminalization of marijuana at the Federal level."
There is *no* good out for Cruz from that retort. It forces Cruz to either support Federal criminalization (and make him a bald-faced liar in the space of two sentences) or it forces Cruz to support Federal decriminalization, something I suspect Cruz does not want to do for obvious reasons.

Right, pot legalization plays to the State's libertarian instincts and the gets stoners and under 30s off the couch into the booth.
AR15, hogs, night vision, wee tongue in cheek.

I’m with Beto on this, but it’s not a show stopper for me. Beto has several positions that are absolute drop dead show stoppers for me.

What are those show stoppers?

I listed some of them in a prior post. Add his position on the 2nd Amendment, his vote against the 2017 tax act, his advocacy for single-payer health care (although I don’t think he really means single-payer, since most people who claim to favor “single-payer” don’t know what it is), and the mumbo-jumbo economic policy statements on his web sites, as noted above by Tanq.

For me:

rejoining Paris Accords

Ban on "weapons of war" (whatever the **** *those* are.... If he means 'howitzers', Stinger missiles, and cluster bombs, no problem. I suspect he means the evil AR-15 'Evil Look' special, that he had the cojones to mention..... once...)

I seem to remember him talk warmly of Warren's idiotic social contract for corporations

Zero public tax dollars should be given to private schools.

Strengthening the EPA

End gerrymandering (stupid as fk position, districting is fundamentally a state power)

Term limits (unicorn farts)

Requiring *all* firearm transactions require background check (kind of cuts against fathers giving firearms to sons with the term *all*, and he knows it based on his explicit position)

Advocating single payer healthcare

Open borders

End the U.S. government’s war on drugs

End the practice of private and for-profit prisons

End bail bonds

Open to abolishing ICE

Opposition to Israeli Iron Dome assistance

Opposition to 2017 tax bill

(09-22-2018 07:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 06:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 06:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 05:58 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  One thing I forgot from last night: Robert missed a golden opportunity to pin Cruz, and pin him pretty badly. I realized this when Cruz and Robert were talking on the pot/drugs issue.
Cruz started his lash at Robert's 'debate on all narcotics' with this paraphrased quote: "I lean to a slight libertarian bent on the issue. What Colorado decides to do with marijuana may be completely different than what Texas wishes to do."
First, from a Senate debate, a complete non-answer. A US Senator from Texas plays no role in state power issues. But that wasnt the worst.
Had Robert not been obviously gut punched by the 'national debate' issue, the perfect response to Cruz would have been:
"I take it from your answer that Colorado and Texas should be able to have differing views on marijuana, I will take it that you support the decriminalization of marijuana at the Federal level."
There is *no* good out for Cruz from that retort. It forces Cruz to either support Federal criminalization (and make him a bald-faced liar in the space of two sentences) or it forces Cruz to support Federal decriminalization, something I suspect Cruz does not want to do for obvious reasons.

Right, pot legalization plays to the State's libertarian instincts and the gets stoners and under 30s off the couch into the booth.
AR15, hogs, night vision, wee tongue in cheek.

I’m with Beto on this, but it’s not a show stopper for me. Beto has several positions that are absolute drop dead show stoppers for me.

What are those show stoppers?

I listed some of them in a prior post. Add his position on the 2nd Amendment, his vote against the 2017 tax act, his advocacy for single-payer health care (although I don’t think he really means single-payer, since most people who claim to favor “single-payer” don’t know what it is), and the mumbo-jumbo economic policy statements on his web sites, as noted above by Tanq.

Mumbo jumbo is generous in my opinion......

I'd add another one with the same level of hard hitting insight:

Quote:Puppies for everyone!!!

As an additional 'on its own' show stopper for Robert:

his explicit support and indication that he would vote for impeachment of Trump right now.

Not saying I wouldnt be unhappy if an impeachment or impeachment trial occurred, DJT is a creep and perhaps unprepared for the job. Unfortunately the Constitutional requirement is for "high crimes and misdemeanors", *not* that I have my panties in a wad at the level Robert seems to be at on the issue.

Further, if one can show the prerequisite, one could make the argument that it would be improper not to vote for a conviction on impeachment in the Senate. But again, at the present time that evidence just seems to be unicorn breaths and bunny farts in terms of tangible evidence.

Arguably, the impeachment power is *the* most important power of the Senate, bar none. If Robert wants to flippantly pre-judge an outcome of this most important power, so be it. His choice.

But, if Robert shows a pre-judgement on this matter of this importance, or for that matter if any Senate candidate showed a pre-judgement for either position on this, it is a show-stopper. It is also damn near proof positive to me that such a candidate who makes that leap to justice is absolutely and fundamentally unfit for the job of United States Senator.

I think that is evidenced by his views on the Dallas police officer shooting. Let the justice system work. Or you can go down Robert's path and pre-judge. Again, stepping out any sort of judgement on the issue, whether the viewpoint that the officer should be tried and convicted of murder, or whether she is lily-white innocent, shows to me an individual with character traits who is fundamentally unfit to hold the office of a United States Senator.

(09-23-2018 08:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As an additional 'on its own' show stopper for Robert:
his explicit support and indication that he would vote for impeachment of Trump right now.
Not saying I wouldnt be unhappy if an impeachment or impeachment trial occurred, DJT is a creep and perhaps unprepared for the job. Unfortunately the Constitutional requirement is for "high crimes and misdemeanors", *not* that I have my panties in a wad at the level Robert seems to be at on the issue.
Further, if one can show the prerequisite, one could make the argument that it would be improper not to vote for a conviction on impeachment in the Senate. But again, at the present time that evidence just seems to be unicorn breaths and bunny farts in terms of tangible evidence.
Arguably, the impeachment power is *the* most important power of the Senate, bar none. If Robert wants to flippantly pre-judge an outcome of this most important power, so be it. His choice.
But, if Robert shows a pre-judgement on this matter of this importance, or for that matter if any Senate candidate showed a pre-judgement for either position on this, it is a show-stopper. It is also damn near proof positive to me that such a candidate who makes that leap to justice is absolutely and fundamentally unfit for the job of United States Senator.
I think that is evidenced by his views on the Dallas police officer shooting. Let the justice system work. Or you can go down Robert's path and pre-judge. Again, stepping out any sort of judgement on the issue, whether the viewpoint that the officer should be tried and convicted of murder, or whether she is lily-white innocent, shows to me an individual with character traits who is fundamentally unfit to hold the office of a United States Senator.

Add to my list.

For the record, I would also disqualify anyone who said he/she was automatically going to vote against impeachment (if a candidate for the house) or conviction and removal (if a candidate for the senate). We don't need to be electing those with prejudiced views before facts are available on such serious matters.

(09-23-2018 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As an additional 'on its own' show stopper for Robert:
his explicit support and indication that he would vote for impeachment of Trump right now.
Not saying I wouldnt be unhappy if an impeachment or impeachment trial occurred, DJT is a creep and perhaps unprepared for the job. Unfortunately the Constitutional requirement is for "high crimes and misdemeanors", *not* that I have my panties in a wad at the level Robert seems to be at on the issue.
Further, if one can show the prerequisite, one could make the argument that it would be improper not to vote for a conviction on impeachment in the Senate. But again, at the present time that evidence just seems to be unicorn breaths and bunny farts in terms of tangible evidence.
Arguably, the impeachment power is *the* most important power of the Senate, bar none. If Robert wants to flippantly pre-judge an outcome of this most important power, so be it. His choice.
But, if Robert shows a pre-judgement on this matter of this importance, or for that matter if any Senate candidate showed a pre-judgement for either position on this, it is a show-stopper. It is also damn near proof positive to me that such a candidate who makes that leap to justice is absolutely and fundamentally unfit for the job of United States Senator.
I think that is evidenced by his views on the Dallas police officer shooting. Let the justice system work. Or you can go down Robert's path and pre-judge. Again, stepping out any sort of judgement on the issue, whether the viewpoint that the officer should be tried and convicted of murder, or whether she is lily-white innocent, shows to me an individual with character traits who is fundamentally unfit to hold the office of a United States Senator.

Add to my list.

For the record, I would also disqualify anyone who said he/she was automatically going to vote against impeachment (if a candidate for the house) or conviction and removal (if a candidate for the senate). We don't need to be electing those with prejudiced views before facts are available on such serious matters.

Where does a cute toothy smile reside on your requirements/show stoppers lists?

(09-23-2018 09:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As an additional 'on its own' show stopper for Robert:
his explicit support and indication that he would vote for impeachment of Trump right now.
Not saying I wouldnt be unhappy if an impeachment or impeachment trial occurred, DJT is a creep and perhaps unprepared for the job. Unfortunately the Constitutional requirement is for "high crimes and misdemeanors", *not* that I have my panties in a wad at the level Robert seems to be at on the issue.
Further, if one can show the prerequisite, one could make the argument that it would be improper not to vote for a conviction on impeachment in the Senate. But again, at the present time that evidence just seems to be unicorn breaths and bunny farts in terms of tangible evidence.
Arguably, the impeachment power is *the* most important power of the Senate, bar none. If Robert wants to flippantly pre-judge an outcome of this most important power, so be it. His choice.
But, if Robert shows a pre-judgement on this matter of this importance, or for that matter if any Senate candidate showed a pre-judgement for either position on this, it is a show-stopper. It is also damn near proof positive to me that such a candidate who makes that leap to justice is absolutely and fundamentally unfit for the job of United States Senator.
I think that is evidenced by his views on the Dallas police officer shooting. Let the justice system work. Or you can go down Robert's path and pre-judge. Again, stepping out any sort of judgement on the issue, whether the viewpoint that the officer should be tried and convicted of murder, or whether she is lily-white innocent, shows to me an individual with character traits who is fundamentally unfit to hold the office of a United States Senator.

Add to my list.
For the record, I would also disqualify anyone who said he/she was automatically going to vote against impeachment (if a candidate for the house) or conviction and removal (if a candidate for the senate). We don't need to be electing those with prejudiced views before facts are available on such serious matters.

Where does a cute toothy smile reside on your requirements/show stoppers lists?

It doesn't. But you knew that.

I would also add that lying about the DWI (he said he made no effort to leave the scene, when the police record clearly indicates otherwise) is fairly high on the list. All politicians lie. I just particularly dislike those who do it blatantly and unrepentantly.

I dont like the blatant differences between the witness statements and his.

I understand if he tried to bolt -- 26 and drunk and being clueless because of the two I can understand (btw, in El Paso, DWI isnt the serious issue as it is elsewhere. El Pasoans make fish look dry.)

I understand also why he denied it.

If he says 'Yeah I was young and stupid and tried to bolt' -- zzzzaaaaaappppp go his election chances.

When he says 'The witness statements are utterly incorrect, I didnt try to bolt' -- all he does is push leaning somewhat anti-Robert into NFW Robert. Wont affect the liberals that follow him, or those captivated by his smile/

If we use Lad's 'rules for belief' we stack someone who has no skin in the game (witness, who in no way knew that Robert was the West Texas spiritual successor to some Kennedy aura) vs Robert's denial the other night (serious vested interest) one has to assume that Robert is lying.

If one seriously believes in Lad's 'rules for belief', I wonder how that affects Robert's viability? Or does one revert to 'who knows what happened' in that case?

If more than one witness stated that, then I think it would be clearer for me. The fact that a single witness says that doesnt trouble me, but the fact that Robert flatly denies that witness does. Not to show stopper point. But it is troubling. If he denied more than one witness -- game over on that count.

I guess he was lucky it was 3am when he plowed into the other car drunk as ****, I guess. Not a huge population of witnesses to go on record.

Seems the rule we should learn is that if you ever contemplate a political career, make sure not just your DWI isnt witnessed, but have the resulting crash that you cause because of it occur at 3 am.

But then, that would be one less opportunity to bootstrap your alcohol induced car crash on an interstate into a platform of white privilege. Is that a good tradeoff in that case?

(09-23-2018 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As an additional 'on its own' show stopper for Robert:
his explicit support and indication that he would vote for impeachment of Trump right now.
Not saying I wouldnt be unhappy if an impeachment or impeachment trial occurred, DJT is a creep and perhaps unprepared for the job. Unfortunately the Constitutional requirement is for "high crimes and misdemeanors", *not* that I have my panties in a wad at the level Robert seems to be at on the issue.
Further, if one can show the prerequisite, one could make the argument that it would be improper not to vote for a conviction on impeachment in the Senate. But again, at the present time that evidence just seems to be unicorn breaths and bunny farts in terms of tangible evidence.
Arguably, the impeachment power is *the* most important power of the Senate, bar none. If Robert wants to flippantly pre-judge an outcome of this most important power, so be it. His choice.
But, if Robert shows a pre-judgement on this matter of this importance, or for that matter if any Senate candidate showed a pre-judgement for either position on this, it is a show-stopper. It is also damn near proof positive to me that such a candidate who makes that leap to justice is absolutely and fundamentally unfit for the job of United States Senator.
I think that is evidenced by his views on the Dallas police officer shooting. Let the justice system work. Or you can go down Robert's path and pre-judge. Again, stepping out any sort of judgement on the issue, whether the viewpoint that the officer should be tried and convicted of murder, or whether she is lily-white innocent, shows to me an individual with character traits who is fundamentally unfit to hold the office of a United States Senator.

Add to my list.

For the record, I would also disqualify anyone who said he/she was automatically going to vote against impeachment (if a candidate for the house) or conviction and removal (if a candidate for the senate). We don't need to be electing those with prejudiced views before facts are available on such serious matters.

Well, but the difference between an impeachment trial and a criminal prosecution is that the former is really an inherently political proceeding, right? The fundamental question of whether the defendant actually "did it" that demands that the factfinder keep an open mind to go where the evidence leads is not always really present in impeachment. Rather, the judgment to be made is (usually) whether admitted or otherwise established acts warrant removal from office - a political question if there ever was one.

So I guess it might not bother me as much if a candidate says he's already made what ultimately would turn out to be a political call anyway.

But I definitely do think a candidate can be judged on the strength of the grounds for his prejudgment, if you want to call it that. What is O'Rourke saying the president should be impeached for? Because at this point I really don't think there's a serious, nonpartisan case to be made - not yet, anyway. All there is is just a lot of partisan hyperventilating - and so I do think that to prejudge impeachment *now* should be disqualifying.

(09-23-2018 10:38 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As an additional 'on its own' show stopper for Robert:
his explicit support and indication that he would vote for impeachment of Trump right now.
Not saying I wouldnt be unhappy if an impeachment or impeachment trial occurred, DJT is a creep and perhaps unprepared for the job. Unfortunately the Constitutional requirement is for "high crimes and misdemeanors", *not* that I have my panties in a wad at the level Robert seems to be at on the issue.
Further, if one can show the prerequisite, one could make the argument that it would be improper not to vote for a conviction on impeachment in the Senate. But again, at the present time that evidence just seems to be unicorn breaths and bunny farts in terms of tangible evidence.
Arguably, the impeachment power is *the* most important power of the Senate, bar none. If Robert wants to flippantly pre-judge an outcome of this most important power, so be it. His choice.
But, if Robert shows a pre-judgement on this matter of this importance, or for that matter if any Senate candidate showed a pre-judgement for either position on this, it is a show-stopper. It is also damn near proof positive to me that such a candidate who makes that leap to justice is absolutely and fundamentally unfit for the job of United States Senator.
I think that is evidenced by his views on the Dallas police officer shooting. Let the justice system work. Or you can go down Robert's path and pre-judge. Again, stepping out any sort of judgement on the issue, whether the viewpoint that the officer should be tried and convicted of murder, or whether she is lily-white innocent, shows to me an individual with character traits who is fundamentally unfit to hold the office of a United States Senator.

Add to my list.

For the record, I would also disqualify anyone who said he/she was automatically going to vote against impeachment (if a candidate for the house) or conviction and removal (if a candidate for the senate). We don't need to be electing those with prejudiced views before facts are available on such serious matters.

Well, but the difference between an impeachment trial and a criminal prosecution is that the former is really an inherently political proceeding, right? The fundamental question of whether the defendant actually "did it" that demands that the factfinder keep an open mind to go where the evidence leads is not always really present in impeachment. Rather, the judgment to be made is (usually) whether admitted or otherwise established acts warrant removal from office - a political question if there ever was one.

So I guess it might not bother me as much if a candidate says he's already made what ultimately would turn out to be a political call anyway.

But I definitely do think a candidate can be judged on the strength of the grounds for his prejudgment, if you want to call it that. What is O'Rourke saying the president should be impeached for? Because at this point I really don't think there's a serious, nonpartisan case to be made - not yet, anyway. All there is is just a lot of partisan hyperventilating - and so I do think that to prejudge impeachment *now* should be disqualifying.

While impeachment is in inherent political act, its prerequisites are "high [crimes] and [misdemeanors]".

Every impeachment (and referral and trial, since one was only referred) contained specific criminal charges in them against the President. Ostensibly since it might not be possible to bring criminal charges against a sitting President without the act of him being impeached (at least that is what is taught up to about 8 years ago in law school as being pretty much black letter law).

Johnsons contained one bull**** count, and 4 other not-so-solid counts. The remaining 6 were reciting supposed violations of law that he could be tried for.

Nixon's contained nothing but items that were actionable criminal events. And Clinton's did as well, iirc.

To judge that 'I would vote to convict for impeachment', while ostensibly a political act, is a de facto statement that the prerequisite crimes have been committed.

Yes, I stand by my statement that to state that one would or would not vote to impeach, or vote to convict in an impeachment, with no predicate facts, probably would render whomever stated either of those as unfit for the office in my view. My opinion of course.

And no, anyone who exhibited the lack of control of such prejudgement, or of being unable to control the urge to proclaim that lack of objectivity in that particular matter, I dont think I could ever vote for. No more than I could support a nomination of a Federal judge who said 'gd it I dont give a fk, Im always going to rule against abortions'. The Senate's role in the proceeding is the exact role that any judge should have in any court, and they should be expected to act in that role. And if not, they should have the self-control not to broadcast that they cannot.

(09-23-2018 11:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 10:38 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As an additional 'on its own' show stopper for Robert:
his explicit support and indication that he would vote for impeachment of Trump right now.
Not saying I wouldnt be unhappy if an impeachment or impeachment trial occurred, DJT is a creep and perhaps unprepared for the job. Unfortunately the Constitutional requirement is for "high crimes and misdemeanors", *not* that I have my panties in a wad at the level Robert seems to be at on the issue.
Further, if one can show the prerequisite, one could make the argument that it would be improper not to vote for a conviction on impeachment in the Senate. But again, at the present time that evidence just seems to be unicorn breaths and bunny farts in terms of tangible evidence.
Arguably, the impeachment power is *the* most important power of the Senate, bar none. If Robert wants to flippantly pre-judge an outcome of this most important power, so be it. His choice.
But, if Robert shows a pre-judgement on this matter of this importance, or for that matter if any Senate candidate showed a pre-judgement for either position on this, it is a show-stopper. It is also damn near proof positive to me that such a candidate who makes that leap to justice is absolutely and fundamentally unfit for the job of United States Senator.
I think that is evidenced by his views on the Dallas police officer shooting. Let the justice system work. Or you can go down Robert's path and pre-judge. Again, stepping out any sort of judgement on the issue, whether the viewpoint that the officer should be tried and convicted of murder, or whether she is lily-white innocent, shows to me an individual with character traits who is fundamentally unfit to hold the office of a United States Senator.

Add to my list.

For the record, I would also disqualify anyone who said he/she was automatically going to vote against impeachment (if a candidate for the house) or conviction and removal (if a candidate for the senate). We don't need to be electing those with prejudiced views before facts are available on such serious matters.

Well, but the difference between an impeachment trial and a criminal prosecution is that the former is really an inherently political proceeding, right? The fundamental question of whether the defendant actually "did it" that demands that the factfinder keep an open mind to go where the evidence leads is not always really present in impeachment. Rather, the judgment to be made is (usually) whether admitted or otherwise established acts warrant removal from office - a political question if there ever was one.

So I guess it might not bother me as much if a candidate says he's already made what ultimately would turn out to be a political call anyway.

But I definitely do think a candidate can be judged on the strength of the grounds for his prejudgment, if you want to call it that. What is O'Rourke saying the president should be impeached for? Because at this point I really don't think there's a serious, nonpartisan case to be made - not yet, anyway. All there is is just a lot of partisan hyperventilating - and so I do think that to prejudge impeachment *now* should be disqualifying.

While impeachment is in inherent political act, its prerequisites are "high [crimes] and [misdemeanors]".

Every impeachment (and referral and trial, since one was only referred) contained specific criminal charges in them against the President. Ostensibly since it might not be possible to bring criminal charges against a sitting President without the act of him being impeached (at least that is what is taught up to about 8 years ago in law school as being pretty much black letter law).

Johnsons contained one bull**** count, and 4 other not-so-solid counts. The remaining 6 were reciting supposed violations of law that he could be tried for.

Nixon's contained nothing but items that were actionable criminal events. And Clinton's did as well, iirc.

To judge that 'I would vote to convict for impeachment', while ostensibly a political act, is a de facto statement that the prerequisite crimes have been committed.

Yes, I stand by my statement that to state that one would or would not vote to impeach, or vote to convict in an impeachment, with no predicate facts, probably would render whomever stated either of those as unfit for the office in my view. My opinion of course.

And no, anyone who exhibited the lack of control of such prejudgement, or of being unable to control the urge to proclaim that lack of objectivity in that particular matter, I dont think I could ever vote for. No more than I could support a nomination of a Federal judge who said 'gd it I dont give a fk, Im always going to rule against abortions'. The Senate's role in the proceeding is the exact role that any judge should have in any court, and they should be expected to act in that role. And if not, they should have the self-control not to broadcast that they cannot.

As to the first bolded, I of course don't disagree that there must be predicate facts for impeachment (and that they must equal high crimes or misdemeanors), my point is that in practice, when it gets all the way to impeachment, we usually know what the facts are before the proceedings even get underway. There are no issues of do we have the right guy, is that his DNA at the scene, is that his voice on the tape, etc., that in the regular criminal context we deem it vital to subject to the crucible of adversarial testing in the presence of an impartial factfinder before there can legitimately be judgment (and sentencing if guilty).

So as to the second bolded, again, perhaps that's the theoretical structure, but in practice the whole show is generally going to be about whether the facts, which are generally not in dispute, warrant impeachment, which is a political judgment. If you asked O'Rourke, I'm sure he would say there *are* predicate facts to justify his prejudgment . . . but I also think that when pressed to name them, there wouldn't be anywhere near a high crime and misdemeanor in the bunch* -- and *that* to me is more revealing of his unfitness.

*I do think the president committed some campaign finance "crimes" (the porn star payments), which I would not characterize as a high crime and misdemeanor, and in any event before becoming president. I think he's also lied about it as president but not while under oath, which also is not an impeachable offense IMO.

Impeachment trials should be decided based upon facts, not politics. Having said that. I have to admit that, had I been a senator during the only impeachment trial since I have been old enough to be a senator, I would have voted not to convict for purely political reasons—there is no way I could ever have voted to make Al Gore President. In Trump’s case I see nothing at this point to support impeachment or removal, but I am quite certain that if democrats retake the house (which I expect) we will see articles of impeachment passed. Going forward, I expect that to become the norm whenever the house and presidency belong to different parties. Going forward, I don’t ever expect the parties to agree on anything. As long as they hold their present positions, I see no common ground. That’s actually a good thing, as I much prefer gridlock to either party’s stated policy objectives.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bet...1540de42f3

How can you not root for a guy who goes to Whataburger after the debate for dinner? Air-drumming along to Baba O'Riley from the Who in the drive-thru line is another plus in my book.

If going to Whataburger and air drumming Baba O'Riley stack up against potentially lying about trying to drive away from an accident caused by his DWI your fundamental choice to exercise.

No doubt he is a 'good looking' guy, with a toothy smile, and acts 'cool'. Those arent really high on the list of 'must-haves' I take a look at when deciding whom to cast a ballot for. But then again Im kind of a deplorable curmudgeon according to some.