Some might consider me to be a deplorable curmudgeon too (although what age do you have to be to be considered a curmudgeon?). I'm still going on the record saying Beto will lose by 5-10 percent.

(09-23-2018 01:08 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  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.

Fair enough. But would you say the same now that you know he's a cool guy who air drums to Baba O'Riley at Whataburger? That seems to be in the mix as an indicia heavy criteria.

I also note that Whataburger is the most expensive of the fast food drive thrus. I guess he doesn't care how much he spends of OPM.

(09-24-2018 09:09 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Some might consider me to be a deplorable curmudgeon too (although what age do you have to be to be considered a curmudgeon?). I'm still going on the record saying Beto will lose by 5-10 percent.

Fair enough. I think it will be closer. Edward is an utter creep who cant seem to close the deal with even those who might think in lockstep with him.

And thank you for your more than reasoned response to my jibe.

But you do know why that kind of fits a generalization, right?

Be good Fort Bend.

(09-24-2018 09:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I also note that Whataburger is the most expensive of the fast food drive thrus. I guess he doesn't care how much he spends of OPM.

Well..... In defense I have no idea whose wallet was pulled out to pay for that fete. He might have used a Whataburger frequent eater card or somefink as well....

(09-24-2018 09:09 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Some might consider me to be a deplorable curmudgeon too (although what age do you have to be to be considered a curmudgeon?). I'm still going on the record saying Beto will lose by 5-10 percent.

Curmudgeons are timeless, my good sir. Timeless.

(09-24-2018 09:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 09:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I also note that Whataburger is the most expensive of the fast food drive thrus. I guess he doesn't care how much he spends of OPM.

Well..... In defense I have no idea whose wallet was pulled out to pay for that fete. He might have used a Whataburger frequent eater card or somefink as well....

Best guess: the campaign.

If one of the other riders paid, it could be an illegal campaign contribution. Calling Mueller...

Since the impeachment thing has been broached, here's a run down on his stance.

In short, he's pretty wishy-washy, basically saying that he doesn't think impeachment proceedings should start, but if there was a vote, he would vote yes. He does seem to stress that he doesn't want to talk much about it.

Quote:"On the issue of impeachment, I’ve never called for it, and you’ve seen us, I’ve never led a town hall with it. I’m not on the resolution calling for the president’s impeachment. What I think we need to do is allow the Bob Mueller investigation to follow its course, and allow him to find the facts wherever they lead, as high up as they go. There’s got to be justice, there were 12 indictments announced two weeks ago for Russian nationals who interfered in our elections. There’s got to be accountability, and we’ve got to safeguard one of the most sacred institutions we have in this country, and that’s the ballot box, and our ability to choose our own leaders. It’s pretty impressive we can still do that, and we shouldn’t allow anything to threaten it."

https://www.politifact.com/texas/article...-trump-no/

(09-24-2018 09:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I also note that Whataburger is the most expensive of the fast food drive thrus. I guess he doesn't care how much he spends of OPM.

Depends on what you get. Whataburger can definitely be on a pricier side, but I've started going to Whata Jr with cheese route (with avocado added to fill out the order) and it's a reasonable price, and unlike McDonald's, BK, etc., it tastes like real food.

But Wendy's is a close second, in my book, in terms of real foodness.

(09-24-2018 09:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Since the impeachment thing has been broached, here's a run down on his stance.
In short, he's pretty wishy-washy, basically saying that he doesn't think impeachment proceedings should start, but if there was a vote, he would vote yes. He does seem to stress that he doesn't want to talk much about it.

Quote:"On the issue of impeachment, I’ve never called for it, and you’ve seen us, I’ve never led a town hall with it. I’m not on the resolution calling for the president’s impeachment. What I think we need to do is allow the Bob Mueller investigation to follow its course, and allow him to find the facts wherever they lead, as high up as they go. There’s got to be justice, there were 12 indictments announced two weeks ago for Russian nationals who interfered in our elections. There’s got to be accountability, and we’ve got to safeguard one of the most sacred institutions we have in this country, and that’s the ballot box, and our ability to choose our own leaders. It’s pretty impressive we can still do that, and we shouldn’t allow anything to threaten it."

https://www.politifact.com/texas/article...-trump-no/

Short version, "Hell yes I'll vote to impeach, but my polling says that will cost me votes, so I'll evade, evade, evade."

(09-24-2018 09:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Since the impeachment thing has been broached, here's a run down on his stance.

In short, he's pretty wishy-washy, basically saying that he doesn't think impeachment proceedings should start, but if there was a vote, he would vote yes. He does seem to stress that he doesn't want to talk much about it.

Quote:"On the issue of impeachment, I’ve never called for it, and you’ve seen us, I’ve never led a town hall with it. I’m not on the resolution calling for the president’s impeachment. What I think we need to do is allow the Bob Mueller investigation to follow its course, and allow him to find the facts wherever they lead, as high up as they go. There’s got to be justice, there were 12 indictments announced two weeks ago for Russian nationals who interfered in our elections. There’s got to be accountability, and we’ve got to safeguard one of the most sacred institutions we have in this country, and that’s the ballot box, and our ability to choose our own leaders. It’s pretty impressive we can still do that, and we shouldn’t allow anything to threaten it."

https://www.politifact.com/texas/article...-trump-no/

Wishy washy? Funny this doesnt seem to be that:

Quote:"Standing on stage in another country with the leader of another country who wants to and has sought to undermine this country, and to side with him over the United States — if I were asked to vote on this I would vote to impeach the president," O'Rourke told The Dallas Morning News on Tuesday.'

Linky to Robert and Vote to Impeach Statement

What a misdirecting piece of **** piece that Robert blurb is, tbh. Seems pretty fing unambiguous that he would vote for it. Or perhaps I missed a nuance in that sentence.

Look at the quote you provided from Robert's mouth.

"I’ve never called for it" -- technically true
"I’ve never led a town hall with it." -- wow glad he never led a town hall it. That narrows it substantially....
"I’m not on the resolution calling for the president’s impeachment" -- good for you that you didnt co-sponsor.

Jeezus Krist that is a 'I never had sex with *that* woman' level of misdirection. Even his follow up on July 31, he never backs from his original statement that he would presently vote for impeachment, if his entire statement were read properly.

The question posited was that he has stated unequivocally that he would vote to do so at this stage. His statement to the Dallas News seems pretty fing straightforward to me. Your Robert quote does a great jig around it. And the quote does ZERO to back down when you read it. Or do you think that he has backed down by saying 'I never led with it at a town hall'?

Lad, again -- words matter.

(09-24-2018 09:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 09:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I also note that Whataburger is the most expensive of the fast food drive thrus. I guess he doesn't care how much he spends of OPM.

Depends on what you get. Whataburger can definitely be on a pricier side, but I've started going to Whata Jr with cheese route (with avocado added to fill out the order) and it's a reasonable price, and unlike McDonald's, BK, etc., it tastes like real food.

But Wendy's is a close second, in my book, in terms of real foodness.

As an old(er) single guy who spends a lot of time on the road, I go through a lot of fast food places. As a guy on a fixed income, I am aware of the cost.

Whataburger has some good food items. But I always pay more than when I go though other outlets, and they are also slower.

McD's, JITHB, Wendy's, and BK all have some menu items that are cheap and good.

Now, if he was feeding himself and a staffer with McDonald's 2 for $5 purchase, that would indicate a person who would like to limit spending. Or if he was ordering the 2 for 1.39 tacos from JITB. Whatburger, well, better than Saltgrass, fiscally.

You all seem confused about Beto's position. He has steadfastly maintained that he does not yet know how he would vote in an impeachment trial if elected to the Senate.

Where he has taken a position is when asked how would he vote today, in his current role as Representative, if impeachment were immediately brought to a vote in the House.

From the DMN in April https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics...answer-yes :

Quote:In a follow-up interview with The News on Monday, O’Rourke said protecting the “independence and integrity of the Mueller investigation” is paramount but that impeachment is not high on his priority list, noting via text message: “I have not co-sponsored the impeachment resolution nor have I brought it up at a single town hall meeting.”

Still, “If someone else does, as [KFYO Radio host] Chad [Hasty] did today, I tell them that if the vote were today, based on what I know about the president’s effort to obstruct justice, the answer is yes.”

Impeaching a president is a two-step process that first requires the House to adopt articles of impeachment, akin to an indictment, followed by a trial in the Senate.

Asked how he’d approach the issue if elected to the Senate, O’Rourke told Hasty that lawmakers "must await all the facts, all the truth” that could emerge from Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling into the 2016 election and potential ties between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

<edit: fixed link>

My stance is that I have never led with it at a town hall. Backbone of fing steel there.....

So he would vote blindly to impeach in the House knowing zero fing facts, but be fair and not to commit to a conviction at a Senate trial. Got it. Makes perfect sense to me.

(09-24-2018 09:49 AM)JOwl Wrote:  You all seem confused about Beto's position. He has steadfastly maintained that he does not yet know how he would vote in an impeachment trial if elected to the Senate.

Where he has taken a position is when asked how would he vote today, in his current role as Representative, if impeachment were immediately brought to a vote in the House.

From the DMN in April https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics...nswer-yes:

Quote:In a follow-up interview with The News on Monday, O’Rourke said protecting the “independence and integrity of the Mueller investigation” is paramount but that impeachment is not high on his priority list, noting via text message: “I have not co-sponsored the impeachment resolution nor have I brought it up at a single town hall meeting.”

Still, “If someone else does, as [KFYO Radio host] Chad [Hasty] did today, I tell them that if the vote were today, based on what I know about the president’s effort to obstruct justice, the answer is yes.”

Impeaching a president is a two-step process that first requires the House to adopt articles of impeachment, akin to an indictment, followed by a trial in the Senate.

Asked how he’d approach the issue if elected to the Senate, O’Rourke told Hasty that lawmakers "must await all the facts, all the truth” that could emerge from Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling into the 2016 election and potential ties between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

Today and every day, the answer is yes.

(09-24-2018 09:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 09:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Since the impeachment thing has been broached, here's a run down on his stance.

In short, he's pretty wishy-washy, basically saying that he doesn't think impeachment proceedings should start, but if there was a vote, he would vote yes. He does seem to stress that he doesn't want to talk much about it.

Quote:"On the issue of impeachment, I’ve never called for it, and you’ve seen us, I’ve never led a town hall with it. I’m not on the resolution calling for the president’s impeachment. What I think we need to do is allow the Bob Mueller investigation to follow its course, and allow him to find the facts wherever they lead, as high up as they go. There’s got to be justice, there were 12 indictments announced two weeks ago for Russian nationals who interfered in our elections. There’s got to be accountability, and we’ve got to safeguard one of the most sacred institutions we have in this country, and that’s the ballot box, and our ability to choose our own leaders. It’s pretty impressive we can still do that, and we shouldn’t allow anything to threaten it."

https://www.politifact.com/texas/article...-trump-no/

Wishy washy? Funny this doesnt seem to be that:

Quote:"Standing on stage in another country with the leader of another country who wants to and has sought to undermine this country, and to side with him over the United States — if I were asked to vote on this I would vote to impeach the president," O'Rourke told The Dallas Morning News on Tuesday.'

Linky to Robert and Vote to Impeach Statement

What a misdirecting piece of **** piece that Robert blurb is, tbh. Seems pretty fing unambiguous that he would vote for it. Or perhaps I missed a nuance in that sentence.

Look at the quote you provided from Robert's mouth.

"I’ve never called for it" -- technically true
"I’ve never led a town hall with it." -- wow glad he never led a town hall it. That narrows it substantially....
"I’m not on the resolution calling for the president’s impeachment" -- good for you that you didnt co-sponsor.

Jeezus Krist that is a 'I never had sex with *that* woman' level of misdirection. Even his follow up on July 31, he never backs from his original statement that he would presently vote for impeachment, if his entire statement were read properly.

The question posited was that he has stated unequivocally that he would vote to do so at this stage. His statement to the Dallas News seems pretty fing straightforward to me. Your Robert quote does a great jig around it. And the quote does ZERO to back down when you read it. Or do you think that he has backed down by saying 'I never led with it at a town hall'?

Lad, again -- words matter.

Wasn't trying to argue, just trying to provide some sources about what O'Rourke has said and what position he's advocated for.

I have not heard him talk about impeachment, so when I saw all of the posts about impeachment, I wanted to make sure I understood what had actually been said by O'Rourke.

He seems very clear, he would vote for impeachment but wouldn't call for it. I'm with Owl#s that he basically believes it is in his best political interest to not talk about it or lead with it, so he is wishy washy in his stance.

Calm down, pal.

will be shocked if Beto wins. Cruz by 10 points easy.

(09-24-2018 09:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 09:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 09:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I also note that Whataburger is the most expensive of the fast food drive thrus. I guess he doesn't care how much he spends of OPM.

Depends on what you get. Whataburger can definitely be on a pricier side, but I've started going to Whata Jr with cheese route (with avocado added to fill out the order) and it's a reasonable price, and unlike McDonald's, BK, etc., it tastes like real food.

But Wendy's is a close second, in my book, in terms of real foodness.

As an old(er) single guy who spends a lot of time on the road, I go through a lot of fast food places. As a guy on a fixed income, I am aware of the cost.

Whataburger has some good food items. But I always pay more than when I go though other outlets, and they are also slower.

McD's, JITHB, Wendy's, and BK all have some menu items that are cheap and good.

Now, if he was feeding himself and a staffer with McDonald's 2 for $5 purchase, that would indicate a person who would like to limit spending. Or if he was ordering the 2 for 1.39 tacos from JITB. Whatburger, well, better than Saltgrass, fiscally.

This speaks so strongly to the difficulty of eating healthy food either on the road or on a limited income. A few of my friends from the Netherlands once road tripped through the American SW and they were shocked that a pack of muffins were cheaper than a cucumber at Wal-Mart.

My job takes me to the field in TX/LA quite a bit, and that often means I'm eating fast food in the work truck. I try to stick to Whata/Wendy's/Chick-fil-a, as they seem to have the best quality of food.

Are you actually upset that Beto may have spent $3 more on his fast food meal, though? If so, don't start looking into what some elected officials are doing on your dime...

(09-24-2018 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 09:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 09:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Since the impeachment thing has been broached, here's a run down on his stance.

In short, he's pretty wishy-washy, basically saying that he doesn't think impeachment proceedings should start, but if there was a vote, he would vote yes. He does seem to stress that he doesn't want to talk much about it.

Quote:"On the issue of impeachment, I’ve never called for it, and you’ve seen us, I’ve never led a town hall with it. I’m not on the resolution calling for the president’s impeachment. What I think we need to do is allow the Bob Mueller investigation to follow its course, and allow him to find the facts wherever they lead, as high up as they go. There’s got to be justice, there were 12 indictments announced two weeks ago for Russian nationals who interfered in our elections. There’s got to be accountability, and we’ve got to safeguard one of the most sacred institutions we have in this country, and that’s the ballot box, and our ability to choose our own leaders. It’s pretty impressive we can still do that, and we shouldn’t allow anything to threaten it."

https://www.politifact.com/texas/article...-trump-no/

Wishy washy? Funny this doesnt seem to be that:

Quote:"Standing on stage in another country with the leader of another country who wants to and has sought to undermine this country, and to side with him over the United States — if I were asked to vote on this I would vote to impeach the president," O'Rourke told The Dallas Morning News on Tuesday.'

Linky to Robert and Vote to Impeach Statement

What a misdirecting piece of **** piece that Robert blurb is, tbh. Seems pretty fing unambiguous that he would vote for it. Or perhaps I missed a nuance in that sentence.

Look at the quote you provided from Robert's mouth.

"I’ve never called for it" -- technically true
"I’ve never led a town hall with it." -- wow glad he never led a town hall it. That narrows it substantially....
"I’m not on the resolution calling for the president’s impeachment" -- good for you that you didnt co-sponsor.

Jeezus Krist that is a 'I never had sex with *that* woman' level of misdirection. Even his follow up on July 31, he never backs from his original statement that he would presently vote for impeachment, if his entire statement were read properly.

The question posited was that he has stated unequivocally that he would vote to do so at this stage. His statement to the Dallas News seems pretty fing straightforward to me. Your Robert quote does a great jig around it. And the quote does ZERO to back down when you read it. Or do you think that he has backed down by saying 'I never led with it at a town hall'?

Lad, again -- words matter.

Wasn't trying to argue, just trying to provide some sources about what O'Rourke has said and what position he's advocated for.

I have not heard him talk about impeachment, so when I saw all of the posts about impeachment, I wanted to make sure I understood what had actually been said by O'Rourke.

He seems very clear, he would vote for impeachment but wouldn't call for it. I'm with Owl#s that he basically believes it is in his best political interest to not talk about it or lead with it, so he is wishy washy in his stance.

Calm down, pal.

so basically, he would not lead the mob to Pilate, but he would stand in the crowd and call to "Crucify him".

Sounds like a follower to me, and the last thing we need is another follower of Schumer and Pelosi.