(09-24-2018 09:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

To be fair, he does say that he believes there is enough evidence of obstruction of justice to send the proceedings to a trial.

So he does provide his own rationale that he could likely defend, if pressed.

(09-24-2018 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  so basically, he would not lead the mob to Pilate, but he would stand in the crowd and call to "Crucify him".

Now we know OO's real name: William Jennings Bryan! :)

(09-24-2018 09:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

The equivalent of having seen enough evidence to indict, nut not yet enough evidence to convict.

He's not calling for an impeachment vote in the House because he believes it to be premature, and that impeachment would be best left until after Mueller's report is published, if ever. But if forced to cast a vote in the House right now, based on what he knows right now, he would vote yes. If forced to cast a vote in the Senate, which is a hypothetical built upon a hypothetical that couldn't possibly happen for 4 months, he said he doesn't yet know. It's all a logically consistent and forthright position.

Personally, I disagree with him (I don't think I've seen enough to impeach). If I were a member of the House and forced to vote now, I would probably vote no, assuming that doesn't preclude another impeachment vote if the facts of the investigation warrant it. I'm not entirely clear how it works, but I assume there's not "double jeopardy" protection in play here.

(09-24-2018 11:02 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 09:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

The equivalent of having seen enough evidence to indict, nut not yet enough evidence to convict.

He's not calling for an impeachment vote in the House because he believes it to be premature, and that impeachment would be best left until after Mueller's report is published, if ever. But if forced to cast a vote in the House right now, based on what he knows right now, he would vote yes. If forced to cast a vote in the Senate, which is a hypothetical built upon a hypothetical that couldn't possibly happen for 4 months, he said he doesn't yet know. It's all a logically consistent and forthright position.

Personally, I disagree with him (I don't think I've seen enough to impeach). If I were a member of the House and forced to vote now, I would probably vote no, assuming that doesn't preclude another impeachment vote if the facts of the investigation warrant it. I'm not entirely clear how it works, but I assume there's not "double jeopardy" protection in play here.

I think he is a good little soldier, and if the leadership wanted a vote, he would want a vote, but since they don't he doesn't, and whether in the House or Senate, he will vote as they want him to.

(09-24-2018 11:02 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 09:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

The equivalent of having seen enough evidence to indict, nut not yet enough evidence to convict.

He's not calling for an impeachment vote in the House because he believes it to be premature, and that impeachment would be best left until after Mueller's report is published, if ever. But if forced to cast a vote in the House right now, based on what he knows right now, he would vote yes. If forced to cast a vote in the Senate, which is a hypothetical built upon a hypothetical that couldn't possibly happen for 4 months, he said he doesn't yet know. It's all a logically consistent and forthright position.

Personally, I disagree with him (I don't think I've seen enough to impeach). If I were a member of the House and forced to vote now, I would probably vote no, assuming that doesn't preclude another impeachment vote if the facts of the investigation warrant it. I'm not entirely clear how it works, but I assume there's not "double jeopardy" protection in play here.

I would hope that he is as discerning and sharp as you. And that he has thought it through to the level above. And that the statement isnt a pandering to liberals (before he thought it out and decided to muzzle the progressive face that he used to proclaim so loudly before realizing that really isnt a barnburner facade in Texas). And that the resounding 'backtrack' of 'I havent led with it at *any* townhalls' isnt just evidence of the cutey pie hero trying desperately to 'appear' like he hasnt made his mind up.

For some strange, odd reason --- I'm not holding my breath on any of those points.

As to your last point, I dont think that anyone would have a rational basis for saying 'damn straight Id vote for it' *or* 'damn straight I would not' at this particular point. Except Robert it seems. And that was 'before Robert' talking.... 'now Robert' takes such brave stands as 'I have never led with it at any townhall'.

To be honest, that particular line is one of the best bull**** lines I think I have ever heard.....

(09-24-2018 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 11:02 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 09:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

The equivalent of having seen enough evidence to indict, nut not yet enough evidence to convict.

He's not calling for an impeachment vote in the House because he believes it to be premature, and that impeachment would be best left until after Mueller's report is published, if ever. But if forced to cast a vote in the House right now, based on what he knows right now, he would vote yes. If forced to cast a vote in the Senate, which is a hypothetical built upon a hypothetical that couldn't possibly happen for 4 months, he said he doesn't yet know. It's all a logically consistent and forthright position.

Personally, I disagree with him (I don't think I've seen enough to impeach). If I were a member of the House and forced to vote now, I would probably vote no, assuming that doesn't preclude another impeachment vote if the facts of the investigation warrant it. I'm not entirely clear how it works, but I assume there's not "double jeopardy" protection in play here.

I think he is a good little soldier, and if the leadership wanted a vote, he would want a vote, but since they don't he doesn't, and whether in the House or Senate, he will vote as they want him to.

Beto has voted in line with Trump's position 28.7% of the time, against an expected support rate of 17.4%.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/con...o-orourke/


By comparison, Schumer is 26.0%, Pelosi is 20.0%, Manchin is 61.0%, Doug Jones is 55.0%. Joaquin Castro (another Texas D) is 18.2%

(09-24-2018 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 11:02 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 09:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  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.

The equivalent of having seen enough evidence to indict, nut not yet enough evidence to convict.

He's not calling for an impeachment vote in the House because he believes it to be premature, and that impeachment would be best left until after Mueller's report is published, if ever. But if forced to cast a vote in the House right now, based on what he knows right now, he would vote yes. If forced to cast a vote in the Senate, which is a hypothetical built upon a hypothetical that couldn't possibly happen for 4 months, he said he doesn't yet know. It's all a logically consistent and forthright position.

Personally, I disagree with him (I don't think I've seen enough to impeach). If I were a member of the House and forced to vote now, I would probably vote no, assuming that doesn't preclude another impeachment vote if the facts of the investigation warrant it. I'm not entirely clear how it works, but I assume there's not "double jeopardy" protection in play here.

I would hope that he is as discerning and sharp as you. And that he has thought it through to the level above. And that the statement isnt a pandering to liberals (before he thought it out and decided to muzzle the progressive face that he used to proclaim so loudly before realizing that really isnt a barnburner facade in Texas). And that the resounding 'backtrack' of 'I havent led with it at *any* townhalls' isnt just evidence of the cutey pie hero trying desperately to 'appear' like he hasnt made his mind up.

For some strange, odd reason --- I'm not holding my breath on any of those points.

As to your last point, I dont think that anyone would have a rational basis for saying 'damn straight Id vote for it' *or* 'damn straight I would not' at this particular point. Except Robert it seems. And that was 'before Robert' talking.... 'now Robert' takes such brave stands as 'I have never led with it at any townhall'.

To be honest, that particular line is one of the best bull**** lines I think I have ever heard.....

I think his townhall lines are much less about him not having made up his mind, and more about him focusing his energy and efforts elsewhere. That he does not want to be known for his positions on Trump, but his positions on other issues.

Also, a very logical position likely driven both by politics (Impeach Trump! is definitely not winning a state-wide election in Texas) and by personal belief of what is most important.

Not sure why you seem so stuck on it.

I think his townhall line is attempt to fill empty word space with misdirecting smoke. Much as I find most of his quotes there.

And sorry, I dont give a pass for giving a deceptive answer in the form of 'well, his electorate wont like it so it's okay' that seems to underlie your response above.

I mean I was fairly explicit about his preconceptions being a showstopper for me.

The response was some claptrap about 'he really didnt mean that' and 'here's a politifact that says he really doesnt mean it', but then *that* response was shown to be kind of a hill of beans. The quotes that were cited, quite honestly, seemed explicitly formulated to misdirect and deceive.

The response to that parsing is (to paraphrase your post above):
1) 'well he really hasnt thought about it';
2) 'he would rather talk about other issues';
3) 'well it is logical that he would avoid and deceive about it'; and
4) 'why do you care about this showstopper, and because it is logical that Robert doesnt want his true initial reaction to be highlighted, why does Tanq dare care about the deceptive nature of his later answers'.

Does that sound about right?

I guess that if I represent a guy on DWI crash who tries to drive away, it should be the perfectly okay in all regards to say 'Not me', because that too would be 'logical' for the same reasons you state above. The internal 'logic' of of the reasons for being deceptive should act as a some sort of hall pass *for* being deceptive. Especially when the logic is 'it is good politics' *and* a held subjective personal belief of itsimportance.

Look Lad, I agree with you it is logical that Robert stay the fk away from impeachment issues, and that he cover up his first statement with the deceptive later ones. Highly logical. Still doesnt make the later deceptiveness that is apparent palatable.

(09-24-2018 01:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The response to that parsing is (to paraphrase your post above):
1) 'well he really hasnt thought about it';
2) 'he would rather talk about other issues';
3) 'well it is logical that he would avoid and deceive about it'; and
4) 'why do you care about this showstopper, and because it is logical that Robert doesnt want his true initial reaction to be highlighted, why does Tanq dare care about the deceptive nature of his later answers'.

Does that sound about right?

Not at all. This is literally my first post about it:

Quote: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.

So from the start I never suggested he hasn't thought about it. Heck, why would I advocate for that position anyways? I had no knowledge of Beto's stance on impeachment until y'all brought it up and I started reading.

And he hasn't been deceitful about his stance on the matter.

There are multiple posts now that provide actual quote from Beto where it shows he has clearly thought out his position on impeachment. I've learned a lot in these past few posts, and I'm surprised you're not picking up on it.

He is clear about his position on his responsibilities as a House member (would not call for a vote, but would vote yes if a vote occurred) and why (he says he would vote yes because obstruction of justice).

He is clear about his position on his responsibilities as a Senator, in that he would wait until the investigation was complete to decide.

He was very straightforward in the Dallas Morning News. What was deceitful about his responses there? You're focusing on a single line from a single quote to try and build an entire position that Beto is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.

Beto's been consistent on this, Tanq.

I don't know why you're so dead-set on spinning this as him taking a position and walking it back. His answer that kicked off this kerfuffle was the 4/9/2018 radio interview, and in it he gave both aspects of his position on the House vote -- yes I would vote to impeach now if it came to a vote, no I don't think it's the right time for impeachment proceedings. He went on to say that the right time is after the Mueller investigation is completed and after the point is reached when the facts are so compelling that (some) Republicans are also willing to impeach.

Go listen to it. It's linked in the DMN article I linked earlier.

His responses to the relevant questions are as follows:
- A. Would you vote to impeach if the vote were held today? Yes
- B. Should impeachment proceedings start now? No
- C. If you are elected to the Senate and Trump is impeached, would you vote to convict? I don't yet know.

It seems that all of your upset stems from him actually giving an answer to question A. What, do you want him to weasel out and say "I don't know?". Would you be similarly offended if Blackburn were to answer these questions the same way, except subbing in a "No" on question A?

(09-24-2018 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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...

On a similar note, Cruz was seen eating at a high-end DC restaurant with a $100+ three course dinner. I imagine you're also wondering who paid for that meal?

Unfortunately, he was seen there because some stupid-ass hecklers felt the need to shout him out of the restaurant. I'm sure I fall in line with you and many others on the board I often disagree with that heckling these public officials out of restaurants is a trend I wish we would see less and less of.

I think engaging public officials in public is fine if it's done in an honest and well-behaved manner. But this is an entirely different level and a line that is being crossed on a too frequent basis.

(09-25-2018 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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...

On a similar note, Cruz was seen eating at a high-end DC restaurant with a $100+ three course dinner. I imagine you're also wondering who paid for that meal?

Unfortunately, he was seen there because some stupid-ass hecklers felt the need to shout him out of the restaurant. I'm sure I fall in line with you and many others on the board I often disagree with that heckling these public officials out of restaurants is a trend I wish we would see less and less of.

I think engaging public officials in public is fine if it's done in an honest and well-behaved manner. But this is an entirely different level and a line that is being crossed on a too frequent basis.

Lighten up. It was more of a dig at Whataburger than O'Rourke. His opinions on spending are better indicated by his party of choice than by his fast food restaurant of choice. May not have even been his choice. He may have just been bowing to the wishes of his constituents in the car.

The campaign contribution dig was a nod to the ticky tacky stuff your side calls the Russia collusion investigation.

All of our politicians are all too happy to eat at the public trough and to use OPM. The few who decline usually don't fare too well. Usually wealthy people who decline contributions. Didn't Trump start out that way? I know Hillary didn't.

We do agree on the heckling. Are there any examples of Democrats being heckled out of restaurants by Republicans? It seems to be a purely Democratic thing so far, just like rioting and burning dumpsters does.
There seems to be an attitude on the left that anything goes if the target is on the right. But I would respect the right of even Adam Schiff to eat in peace.

Heckling of Cruz

Interesting the chant is "We believe survivors". Kind of circular reasoning - they are only survivors if one believes them. Maybe they should have chanted "We believe accusers".

(09-25-2018 10:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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...

On a similar note, Cruz was seen eating at a high-end DC restaurant with a $100+ three course dinner. I imagine you're also wondering who paid for that meal?

Unfortunately, he was seen there because some stupid-ass hecklers felt the need to shout him out of the restaurant. I'm sure I fall in line with you and many others on the board I often disagree with that heckling these public officials out of restaurants is a trend I wish we would see less and less of.

I think engaging public officials in public is fine if it's done in an honest and well-behaved manner. But this is an entirely different level and a line that is being crossed on a too frequent basis.

Lighten up. It was more of a dig at Whataburger than O'Rourke. His opinions on spending are better indicated by his party of choice than by his fast food restaurant of choice. May not have even been his choice. He may have just been bowing to the wishes of his constituents in the car.

The campaign contribution dig was a nod to the ticky tacky stuff your side calls the Russia collusion investigation.

All of our politicians are all too happy to eat at the public trough and to use OPM. The few who decline usually don't fare too well. Usually wealthy people who decline contributions. Didn't Trump start out that way? I know Hillary didn't.

We do agree on the heckling. Are there any examples of Democrats being heckled out of restaurants by Republicans? It seems to be a purely Democratic thing so far, just like rioting and burning dumpsters does.
There seems to be an attitude on the left that anything goes if the target is on the right. But I would respect the right of even Adam Schiff to eat in peace.

Heckling of Cruz

Interesting the chant is "We believe survivors". Kind of circular reasoning - they are only survivors if one believes them. Maybe they should have chanted "We believe accusers".

Ah, it was not very clear that you were making the comment in jest.

And no, the heckling does seem to be isolated to the left. Like I said, not a fan of it.

The right has its own tactics, they employ. You see a lot of conservative protests/counter-protests where people are open carrying long rifles and wearing body armor - almost always in an attempt to try and intimidate others. Then there was the whole Unite the Right protest with tiki torches and vehicular homicide.

Violent protests are not solely a Dem issue, but I'd agree that the whole heckling out of restaurant things is a purely Dem issue right now.

(09-25-2018 10:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 10:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

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

On a similar note, Cruz was seen eating at a high-end DC restaurant with a $100+ three course dinner. I imagine you're also wondering who paid for that meal?

Unfortunately, he was seen there because some stupid-ass hecklers felt the need to shout him out of the restaurant. I'm sure I fall in line with you and many others on the board I often disagree with that heckling these public officials out of restaurants is a trend I wish we would see less and less of.

I think engaging public officials in public is fine if it's done in an honest and well-behaved manner. But this is an entirely different level and a line that is being crossed on a too frequent basis.

Lighten up. It was more of a dig at Whataburger than O'Rourke. His opinions on spending are better indicated by his party of choice than by his fast food restaurant of choice. May not have even been his choice. He may have just been bowing to the wishes of his constituents in the car.

The campaign contribution dig was a nod to the ticky tacky stuff your side calls the Russia collusion investigation.

All of our politicians are all too happy to eat at the public trough and to use OPM. The few who decline usually don't fare too well. Usually wealthy people who decline contributions. Didn't Trump start out that way? I know Hillary didn't.

We do agree on the heckling. Are there any examples of Democrats being heckled out of restaurants by Republicans? It seems to be a purely Democratic thing so far, just like rioting and burning dumpsters does.
There seems to be an attitude on the left that anything goes if the target is on the right. But I would respect the right of even Adam Schiff to eat in peace.

Heckling of Cruz

Interesting the chant is "We believe survivors". Kind of circular reasoning - they are only survivors if one believes them. Maybe they should have chanted "We believe accusers".

Ah, it was not very clear that you were making the comment in jest.

And no, the heckling does seem to be isolated to the left. Like I said, not a fan of it.

The right has its own tactics, they employ. You see a lot of conservative protests/counter-protests where people are open carrying long rifles and wearing body armor - almost always in an attempt to try and intimidate others. Then there was the whole Unite the Right protest with tiki torches and vehicular homicide.

Violent protests are not solely a Dem issue, but I'd agree that the whole heckling out of restaurant things is a purely Dem issue right now.

In a world where we read nuances into every little thing, I did so. But I would caution against making political choices on things like that. I am not for the people and issues that I am for because they eat at Denny's or Cracker Barrel. I am against the people I am against partially because their supporters think it proper to heckle people at Cracker Barrel.

I presume you are referring to the Tea Party rallies where long guns and body armor were displayed. Those were not in-your-face confrontations like the left favors - more private get-togethers. And, I remember a black man carrying a long gun at the BLM march in Dallas where the police officers were murdered. He was cleared, and I support his right to keep and bear arms.

The Unite the Right protest would have passed quietly and without notice except for the antiright protestors. No jeering crowd, no problem. Just a bunch of wackos walking from here to there with torches. It was the confrontation that led to violence. Takes two to make a confrontation.

And the vehicular homicide was the act of one individual, not a planned part of the rally. You guys always want to paint it as a planned and integral part of the right's agenda, but it is not, any more than than that Dallas shooter was a planned part of the BLM march.

I assume that if we are now ascribi
ng the warped acts of sick individuals as part and parcel of the examination of stupid and unbecoming protests I will assume you were just about to include Steve Scalise and the shooting of the Republican house baseball team, right?

am posting from the middle of nowhere on a mobile so i cant easily linky poo...

but the washington post seems to be less forgiving than this deplorable on fact checking roberts denial of trying to run away from the alcohol induced crash he was at the root at. 4 pinnochios in fact

so since some here (including me) are on record as saying if kavavaugh lied to the senate about his statement that would render him unfit, what is the standard from the left ober what is noted by the washington post as a 4 pinnochio lie about this just the other night? acceptable in your book?

(09-25-2018 11:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  am posting from the middle of nowhere on a mobile so i cant easily linky poo...

but the washington post seems to be less forgiving than this deplorable on fact checking roberts denial of trying to run away from the alcohol induced crash he was at the root at. 4 pinnochios in fact

so since some here (including me) are on record as saying if kavavaugh lied to the senate about his statement that would render him unfit, what is the standard from the left ober what is noted by the washington post as a 4 pinnochio lie about this just the other night? acceptable in your book?

I don't think it's acceptable from O'Rourke and there will almost certainly be follow up to it. It will be interesting to see how his tune changes (if he does).

If Beto lied about this underoath, a la Kavanaugh (not suggesting Kavanaugh lied here, just talking about the setting), then he should not hold office (elected or appointed). Lying while not under oath is bad, and unfortunately most every politician does it, which has rendered it not-unqualifying in that sense (my guess is Trump has a few 4-Pinocchio lies).

Honestly, if he does not correct his response and doubles down with a complete denial, it will give me pause and I'll consider the libertarian candidate. This is something that Beto doesn't need to lie about.

Based on the police report I'm surprised he so vividly remembers he didn't try to leave the scene. My guess (and hope, honestly) is he'll change his tune when asked again and be more forthcoming about his memory (well, his likely lack of memory). It's perfectly understandable if he has no memory of trying to flee - he was drunk as a skunk and had just hit someone at a high speed - so he should at least own up to the fact that the two witnesses that say he tried to leave are telling the truth. Plus, there are records of him staying around to deal with police, so in the end he waited for police and dealt with the consequences.

Here is the link, btw: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...8069a42ad7

(09-25-2018 11:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I assume that if we are now ascribi
ng the warped acts of sick individuals as part and parcel of the examination of stupid and unbecoming protests I will assume you were just about to include Steve Scalise and the shooting of the Republican house baseball team, right?

Well, in all of the cases we're talking about, politics were fairly front and center and part of the motivation. I mean, Charlottesville was called "Unite the Right" after all...

But I'm not ascribing the warped acts of individuals the the entirety of one side, and I didn't intend to suggest that. But both parties have factions/issues they have to deal with in this regard. What I was trying to comment on was how each party must grapple with those people.

The left must deal with the often violent/destructive actions taken by those on the far-left like Antifa as well as the more mainstream heckling we're seeing now.

The right, alternatively, must deal with the obvious use of long guns to attempt to intimidate others during protests (yes OO, the Constitution protects this right, but it is an obvious attempt to intimidate others) as well as the outspokenness of those on the far/alt-right. I think that, outside of Trump and Steve King, the Republican party has done a much better job since Charlottesville of letting those fringe groups know they are not wanted, nor part of the mainstream. And the combination of that, and private companies removing those groups from their services, appears to have led to a decrease in their activities.

I do wish that law makers on the left would be more vocal in denouncing the unsavory actions of the fringe and mainstream supporters, instead of condoning it like some have.

(09-24-2018 06:39 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Beto's been consistent on this, Tanq.

I don't know why you're so dead-set on spinning this as him taking a position and walking it back. His answer that kicked off this kerfuffle was the 4/9/2018 radio interview, and in it he gave both aspects of his position on the House vote -- yes I would vote to impeach now if it came to a vote, no I don't think it's the right time for impeachment proceedings. He went on to say that the right time is after the Mueller investigation is completed and after the point is reached when the facts are so compelling that (some) Republicans are also willing to impeach.

Go listen to it. It's linked in the DMN article I linked earlier.

His responses to the relevant questions are as follows:
- A. Would you vote to impeach if the vote were held today? Yes
- B. Should impeachment proceedings start now? No
- C. If you are elected to the Senate and Trump is impeached, would you vote to convict? I don't yet know.

It seems that all of your upset stems from him actually giving an answer to question A. What, do you want him to weasel out and say "I don't know?". Would you be similarly offended if Blackburn were to answer these questions the same way, except subbing in a "No" on question A?

Personally, I would be upset with any answer to A other than, ”I don’t know.” Because to date there is not enough information to support an informed, reasonable answer to that question.

Of course in our system of justice, when that is the case, the answer defaults to “No.”

(09-25-2018 10:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 10:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 10:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Best guess: the campaign.

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

On a similar note, Cruz was seen eating at a high-end DC restaurant with a $100+ three course dinner. I imagine you're also wondering who paid for that meal?

Unfortunately, he was seen there because some stupid-ass hecklers felt the need to shout him out of the restaurant. I'm sure I fall in line with you and many others on the board I often disagree with that heckling these public officials out of restaurants is a trend I wish we would see less and less of.

I think engaging public officials in public is fine if it's done in an honest and well-behaved manner. But this is an entirely different level and a line that is being crossed on a too frequent basis.

Lighten up. It was more of a dig at Whataburger than O'Rourke. His opinions on spending are better indicated by his party of choice than by his fast food restaurant of choice. May not have even been his choice. He may have just been bowing to the wishes of his constituents in the car.

The campaign contribution dig was a nod to the ticky tacky stuff your side calls the Russia collusion investigation.

All of our politicians are all too happy to eat at the public trough and to use OPM. The few who decline usually don't fare too well. Usually wealthy people who decline contributions. Didn't Trump start out that way? I know Hillary didn't.

We do agree on the heckling. Are there any examples of Democrats being heckled out of restaurants by Republicans? It seems to be a purely Democratic thing so far, just like rioting and burning dumpsters does.
There seems to be an attitude on the left that anything goes if the target is on the right. But I would respect the right of even Adam Schiff to eat in peace.

Heckling of Cruz

Interesting the chant is "We believe survivors". Kind of circular reasoning - they are only survivors if one believes them. Maybe they should have chanted "We believe accusers".

Ah, it was not very clear that you were making the comment in jest.

And no, the heckling does seem to be isolated to the left. Like I said, not a fan of it.

The right has its own tactics, they employ. You see a lot of conservative protests/counter-protests where people are open carrying long rifles and wearing body armor - almost always in an attempt to try and intimidate others. Then there was the whole Unite the Right protest with tiki torches and vehicular homicide.

Violent protests are not solely a Dem issue, but I'd agree that the whole heckling out of restaurant things is a purely Dem issue right now.

In a world where we read nuances into every little thing, I did so. But I would caution against making political choices on things like that. I am not for the people and issues that I am for because they eat at Denny's or Cracker Barrel. I am against the people I am against partially because their supporters think it proper to heckle people at Cracker Barrel.

I presume you are referring to the Tea Party rallies where long guns and body armor were displayed. Those were not in-your-face confrontations like the left favors - more private get-togethers. And, I remember a black man carrying a long gun at the BLM march in Dallas where the police officers were murdered. He was cleared, and I support his right to keep and bear arms.

The Unite the Right protest would have passed quietly and without notice except for the antiright protestors. No jeering crowd, no problem. Just a bunch of wackos walking from here to there with torches. It was the confrontation that led to violence. Takes two to make a confrontation.

And the vehicular homicide was the act of one individual, not a planned part of the rally. You guys always want to paint it as a planned and integral part of the right's agenda, but it is not, any more than than that Dallas shooter was a planned part of the BLM march.

I think your BLM comparison is spot on, and actually helps solidify my point. BLM and leaders that support their cause need to make sure they are not promoting an environment that would lead to someone thinking that taking out their frustrations through violence is appropriate. You can support causes with stoking flames and emboldening people who are too willing to use violence.

As I just responded to Tanq, I'm not saying that the Unite the Right was indicative of the right as a whole, but it is the right's problem, in the same way that the BLM shooter is the left's problem.

And I was referring to way more than just Tea Party protests. I don't think this is a Tea Party protest: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/news/201...mic-center

Quote: Hundreds gathered around the Islamic Association of North Texas in Richardson on Saturday to protest Islamic law, which they fear is a growing threat to American values and the U.S. Constitution.

The rally was peaceful, although several protesters were armed with rifles — even as children filed into the mosque.

Ironically, I'm guessing this will lead to more militant groups on the left (like Black Panthers, Antifa), starting to open carry as well, which will make things rather, uh, tense.