(02-02-2020 06:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 04:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yet it is so amazingly terrible to some when a Majority Leader says one of their top priorities is to make sure their opposing party doesnt have a president re-elected. Quite the narrow path you seemingly delineate between acceptable and not.

Let’s see - one situation involves someone not running for President, pontificating after the election of the opposite party to POTUS, while the other involves people running for president, prior to the election of POTUS.
Yeah, completely similar scenarios...

It strikes me that you are suggesting a distinction without a difference.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

I dont see a whit of difference between them in substance. But it sure is fun to watch the the 'reasoning' as to the difference in tone (how bad it is, vs. perfectly acceptable) on each is.

I mean, how dare a Majority Leader say that a primary goal was to unseat a sitting President, and how perfectly okay it also is for any democrat to say that the primary goal is to unseat a sitting President. Lolz.

If the "crucial" distinction is temporal, then what is the 'acceptable' date to express the goal of unseating a Presdent? Us rubes want to know that critical decisive moment. I mean, this might be like a statute of limitations, apparently where actual minutes count....

Or is this just a social temporal faux pas, like, 'no wearing white' after Labor Day?

Same old double standard. What is dastardly for right wingers is fine for left wingers.

(02-02-2020 11:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 04:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yet it is so amazingly terrible to some when a Majority Leader says one of their top priorities is to make sure their opposing party doesnt have a president re-elected. Quite the narrow path you seemingly delineate between acceptable and not.

Let’s see - one situation involves someone not running for President, pontificating after the election of the opposite party to POTUS, while the other involves people running for president, prior to the election of POTUS.
Yeah, completely similar scenarios...

It strikes me that you are suggesting a distinction without a difference.

Difference is very clear - one person is literally trying to take the other’s current job by running for President, while the other isn’t.

Of course Biden wants to make Trump a one-term President - he is running to unseat him...

Are you under the impression that Biden is the only Democrat wanting to make Trump a one term president?

I think every Democrat wants to make Trump a one term President. Including all the ones posting here. I think they have all wanted to make him a one term (or less) President since Election night, 2016. If you know of any exceptions, give us their names, please.

(02-01-2020 10:15 AM)Foff Wrote:  trump puffs himself like mr big man

No need to get personal like that

(02-02-2020 11:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 11:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 04:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yet it is so amazingly terrible to some when a Majority Leader says one of their top priorities is to make sure their opposing party doesnt have a president re-elected. Quite the narrow path you seemingly delineate between acceptable and not.

Let’s see - one situation involves someone not running for President, pontificating after the election of the opposite party to POTUS, while the other involves people running for president, prior to the election of POTUS.
Yeah, completely similar scenarios...

It strikes me that you are suggesting a distinction without a difference.

Difference is very clear - one person is literally trying to take the other’s current job by running for President, while the other isn’t.

Of course Biden wants to make Trump a one-term President - he is running to unseat him...

Are you under the impression that Biden is the only Democrat wanting to make Trump a one term president?

I think every Democrat wants to make Trump a one term President. Including all the ones posting here. I think they have all wanted to make him a one term (or less) President since Election night, 2016. If you know of any exceptions, give us their names, please.

No, Biden is not the only person with that goal.

But I’m actually surprised no one sees the difference between what the inherent, primary goal of a presidential candidate is, and what the inherent, primary goal of the Senate leader, not running for President is.

I’ll spell it out for you - unseat the current president and passing the legislative agenda for their party.

(02-03-2020 06:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 11:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 11:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let’s see - one situation involves someone not running for President, pontificating after the election of the opposite party to POTUS, while the other involves people running for president, prior to the election of POTUS.
Yeah, completely similar scenarios...

It strikes me that you are suggesting a distinction without a difference.

Difference is very clear - one person is literally trying to take the other’s current job by running for President, while the other isn’t.

Of course Biden wants to make Trump a one-term President - he is running to unseat him...

Are you under the impression that Biden is the only Democrat wanting to make Trump a one term president?

I think every Democrat wants to make Trump a one term President. Including all the ones posting here. I think they have all wanted to make him a one term (or less) President since Election night, 2016. If you know of any exceptions, give us their names, please.

No, Biden is not the only person with that goal.

But I’m actually surprised no one sees the difference between what the inherent, primary goal of a presidential candidate is, and what the inherent, primary goal of the Senate leader, not running for President is.

I’ll spell it out for you - unseat the current president and passing the legislative agenda for their party.

So to see that the Presidency does not go one way or another is *not* a goal of an opposition leader, nor should it ever be. Seriously?

By the way, are you aware that when Cocaine Mitch said that he was a minority leader, and not the leader of the Senate? I am self-correcting my post here.

Or is it in the 'rules of Lad' that anyone *not* expressly running for the office of the Presidency should never express a goal of unseating a President?

I am also still waiting for the temporal rules of etiquette on this.

(02-03-2020 09:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 06:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 11:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 11:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It strikes me that you are suggesting a distinction without a difference.

Difference is very clear - one person is literally trying to take the other’s current job by running for President, while the other isn’t.

Of course Biden wants to make Trump a one-term President - he is running to unseat him...

Are you under the impression that Biden is the only Democrat wanting to make Trump a one term president?

I think every Democrat wants to make Trump a one term President. Including all the ones posting here. I think they have all wanted to make him a one term (or less) President since Election night, 2016. If you know of any exceptions, give us their names, please.

No, Biden is not the only person with that goal.

But I’m actually surprised no one sees the difference between what the inherent, primary goal of a presidential candidate is, and what the inherent, primary goal of the Senate leader, not running for President is.

I’ll spell it out for you - unseat the current president and passing the legislative agenda for their party.

So to see that the Presidency does not go one way or another is *not* a goal of an opposition leader, nor should it ever be. Seriously?

By the way, are you aware that when Cocaine Mitch said that he was a minority leader, and not the leader of the Senate? I am self-correcting my post here.

Or is it in the 'rules of Lad' that anyone *not* expressly running for the office of the Presidency should never express a goal of unseating a President?

I am also still waiting for the temporal rules of etiquette on this.

You're right Tanq, you're always right. Republicans do no wrong in the service of their great leaders.

(02-03-2020 09:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right Tanq, you're always right. Republicans do no wrong in the service of their great leaders.

By the way, Tanq's not a republican (nor am I). I think the point he's trying to make is that democrats fail to see any wrong on the part of their leaders, and will make any differentiation, no matter how insignificant, to justify the acts of their own. Tell me, do you really think that, say, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have not had the goal of making Donald Trump a one-term president (or less)?

Donald Trump has his flaws as president. But he didn't get elected because democrats offered a flawless opponent. Politicians are humans. That means they have flaws, including democrats. Right now I see the democrat alternatives as more flawed because each of them has at least two pr three issue positions that are absolute drop-dead show-stoppers for me.

(02-03-2020 09:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 09:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 06:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 11:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 11:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Difference is very clear - one person is literally trying to take the other’s current job by running for President, while the other isn’t.

Of course Biden wants to make Trump a one-term President - he is running to unseat him...

Are you under the impression that Biden is the only Democrat wanting to make Trump a one term president?

I think every Democrat wants to make Trump a one term President. Including all the ones posting here. I think they have all wanted to make him a one term (or less) President since Election night, 2016. If you know of any exceptions, give us their names, please.

No, Biden is not the only person with that goal.

But I’m actually surprised no one sees the difference between what the inherent, primary goal of a presidential candidate is, and what the inherent, primary goal of the Senate leader, not running for President is.

I’ll spell it out for you - unseat the current president and passing the legislative agenda for their party.

So to see that the Presidency does not go one way or another is *not* a goal of an opposition leader, nor should it ever be. Seriously?

By the way, are you aware that when Cocaine Mitch said that he was a minority leader, and not the leader of the Senate? I am self-correcting my post here.

Or is it in the 'rules of Lad' that anyone *not* expressly running for the office of the Presidency should never express a goal of unseating a President?

I am also still waiting for the temporal rules of etiquette on this.

You're right Tanq, you're always right. Republicans do no wrong in the service of their great leaders.

Thats not really an answer to any of the questions on those 'proper'/improper lines you have thrwon down, is it? More of a maddy-poo response on the surface.

Actually, lad, had you actually read a post of mine previously, I think that anyone can have a goal of trying to see that their party takes or retains the White House. At any time. So as much as you try to impart a partisan spin on my questions, it kind of falls face down in the mud when considering what I have actually previously stated.

Accordingly I dont have an issue with the Snapping Turtle stating that back then. Nor any Demo candidate now. Nor (one that you have apparently forgotten or overlooked) Nancy Pelosi having or stating that goal from 2nd week of November 2016. (Funny that).

Now since I hope beyond hope that you really cannot place Pelosi into the grouping of "Republicans do[ing] no wrong" that you whine about me as such above, maybe, just maybe, you can educate us on your very interesting parsing of 'when and how' it is double ungood bad to 'state support for unseating of a President' and when it is Miss Manner's proper to do so. That is before you start to whine about me, mind you.

My suggestion is that perhaps you should have bothered to read my previous post directly on point. Kind of makes your churlish answer even more the churlish answer, doesnt it?

Look forward to some temporal and/or societal mores coming from your quarter on the distinction of such 'badness' from the 'goodness'.

(02-03-2020 09:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 09:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right Tanq, you're always right. Republicans do no wrong in the service of their great leaders.

By the way, Tanq's not a republican (nor am I). I think the point he's trying to make is that democrats fail to see any wrong on the part of their leaders.

Actually I have no issue with any of the candidates' stating their goal as unseating Trump. Neither do I have any issue with Pelosi's constant comments on that quarter since November 2016.

It isnt that I see Democrats failing to see wrong here, just some rank as **** hypocrisy when castigating one Republican for an act, then dancing and parsing their way to making the same act acceptable to their candidates and leaders, all the while absolutely overlooking the same act from their own non-candidate leaders for a very long time.

And to be blunt, a Party leader (from any party, mind you) stating a goal of unseating an opposition President, at any time, is just amazingly par for the course. Has been for 30+ years.

So lad's stance on the original castigation is just pretty much kind of 'talking points' stupid. And it doesnt come across any better with the rank non-consideration of the same such comments from a score or more of Democratic leaders since mid-November 2016, nor does it come across any better with the two-step about 'candidates okay, leaders not'.

Again, for the record, I have zero issue with Snapping Turtle's comments, nor any issue with Schumer's, Pelosi's, or any number of non-candidate Democratic leaders comments since 2016, nor any issue with the absolutel squawk canopy of that statement (to the exclusion of pretty much anything else) from the Democratic candidates themselves.

Well, Lad, I have no doubt you would call me a Republican, since I end up supporting them most of the time under the doctrine of the lesser evil. But I don't always. I did not vote for Trump in 2016. I often vote for non-Republicans in down ticket races. But I am not a member of that party. I don't carry a card, I don't attend any meetings, and I most certainly don't send any money. I consider myself a conservative, not a Republican. But it doesn't matter a lot what labels that are put on me - conservative, Republican, deplorable, racist, whatever - I am what I am and not what people who don't like my choices say I am.

I think it strange that so many leftists make a big deal of McConnell saying he was going to try to make a one term President out of Obama. I think that was true of all Republicans and conservatives at that time.

I also find nothing strange in the desire on the part of Democrats to make Trump a one term President. What is surprising are the underhanded tactics they have adopted to do so. Impeachment, investigation,lying, innuendo, the Resistance.

Also surprising is the insistence that their motives are pure while McConnel's were bad. The insistence that not cooperating with Obama was bad, but obstructing Trump is good. This sounds like the same old Democratic double standard to me. I hear a lot of wailing about conspiring with foreign powers to influence an election, but when we have an American President on tape asking a foreign power to be patient until after the ELECTION and then he can be more flexible in giving them what they want, crickets. When we have a candidate paying for a foreign national to travel to Russia to dig up dirt on an opposing political candidate, crickets. Two-faced is another word for Democratic morals. They think that as long as they do bad things for good reasons, it is OK.
If they would just own up to their underhanded ways and not try to justify them as something pure, something different and better than what the nasty Republicans do/did, I would find that more more honest. What I actually find is a consistent "holier than thou" attitude.

No, Lad, I see nothing wrong with the desire by any member of any party to make the tenure of an opposition party incumbent shorter. That would be true of any party, any time. I just think they ought to try it through the ballot box, and I think they should not try to draw distinctions between what they are doing and what the opposition is doing.

(02-03-2020 10:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No, Lad, I see nothing wrong with the desire by any member of any party to make the tenure of an opposition party incumbent shorter. That would be true of any party, any time. I just think they ought to try it through the ballot box, and I think they should not try to draw distinctions between what they are doing and what the opposition is doing.

Nor do I. What I do see wrong is manufacturing outrage to try to get your way. I don't see the basis for arguing that it is an impeachable offense to investigate a situation where there is reason for legitimate belief that it is possible that one or more Americans has engaged in illegal or corrupt conduct in a foreign country, or to push such foreign country to assist in such investigation. Just like the "Russia collusion" myth and the "Kavanaugh rape" myth, both of which I find entirely unbelievable, I think the democrats have resorted to all-time new lows in the area of dirty tricks ever since November 2016 (or before, if we include the dossier foolishness). They hate Donald Trump, and they have let their hatred overcome any sense of propriety in pursuing his ouster.

Someone said recently that the reason democrats hate Donald Trump so much is because they have been playing hard ball for years, and he is the first republican to play hard ball back at them. I don't know if that is true or not. I have my differences with Trump, but not for that reason. I differ with him on policies--including the wall and the tariffs. But my policy differences with any democrat in the field are much more severe--every one of them has at least two or three issue positions that are absolute drop-dead show-stoppers for me, whereas my differences with Trump are more with regard to degree than absolute opposition. And I am an issues voter. Not a single-issue voter, but I will vote for the person whose totality of issue positions agrees most closely with mine.

In the 2020 presidential election, the candidate whose issue positions will most closely align with mine across the board will almost certainly be the libertarian. The second most closely will almost certainly be Donald Trump, by a wide margin over any democrat. So my position at this point, which I expect to remain, is, "Libertarian if I can, Trump if I must."

(02-03-2020 09:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tell me, do you really think that, say, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have not had the goal of making Donald Trump a one-term president (or less)?

Yes, Pelosi and Schumer have the goal of making Trump a 1-term president. No, I don't have a problem, in theory, of McConnell having had a goal of making Obama a 1-term president. The problem to me is the execution of the goal. To me, it is totally fine to fundraise and campaign. It is ok to negotiate on legislation. It is not OK to slam the breaks on bipartisan legislation, play games with the debt ceiling, etc. So my impression of McConnell's actions is that he was perfectly willing to let the country burn to the ground, break the government, or (possibly) irrevocably break the functionality of the Senate if it meant defeating Obama. I don't see the same level of political and policy ruthlessness from Schumer or Pelosi.

Some are fine with McConnell's hardball tactics. Some think Reid/Schumer started it and blame the dems (DDS?). Some think he is no better or worse then the Dems. Regardless of any of that, I believe McConnell's actions have been bad for democracy and bad for our country. Whether similar games were played by democratic leaders or not does nothing to justify McConnell's actions.

(02-03-2020 10:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No, Lad, I see nothing wrong with the desire by any member of any party to make the tenure of an opposition party incumbent shorter. That would be true of any party, any time. I just think they ought to try it through the ballot box, and I think they should not try to draw distinctions between what they are doing and what the opposition is doing.

Nor do I. What I do see wrong is manufacturing outrage to try to get your way. I don't see the basis for arguing that it is an impeachable offense to investigate a situation where there is reason for legitimate belief that it is possible that one or more Americans has engaged in illegal or corrupt conduct in a foreign country, or to push such foreign country to assist in such investigation. Just like the "Russia collusion" myth and the "Kavanaugh rape" myth, both of which I find entirely unbelievable, I think the democrats have resorted to all-time new lows in the area of dirty tricks ever since November 2016 (or before, if we include the dossier foolishness). They hate Donald Trump, and they have let their hatred overcome any sense of propriety in pursuing his ouster.

Someone said recently that the reason democrats hate Donald Trump so much is because they have been playing hard ball for years, and he is the first republican to play hard ball back at them. I don't know if that is true or not. I have my differences with Trump, but not for that reason. I differ with him on policies--including the wall and the tariffs. But my policy differences with any democrat in the field are much more severe--every one of them has at least two or three issue positions that are absolute drop-dead show-stoppers for me, whereas my differences with Trump are more with regard to degree than absolute opposition. And I am an issues voter. Not a single-issue voter, but I will vote for the person whose totality of issue positions agrees most closely with mine.

In the 2020 presidential election, the candidate whose issue positions will most closely align with mine across the board will almost certainly be the libertarian. The second most closely will almost certainly be Donald Trump, both of them by wide, wide margins over any democrat. So my position at this point, which I expect to remain, is, "Libertarian if I can, Trump if I must."

(02-03-2020 11:02 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 09:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tell me, do you really think that, say, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have not had the goal of making Donald Trump a one-term president (or less)?

Yes, Pelosi and Schumer have the goal of making Trump a 1-term president. No, I don't have a problem, in theory, of McConnell having had a goal of making Obama a 1-term president. The problem to me is the execution of the goal. To me, it is totally fine to fundraise and campaign. It is ok to negotiate on legislation. It is not OK to slam the breaks on bipartisan legislation, play games with the debt ceiling, etc. So my impression of McConnell's actions is that he was perfectly willing to let the country burn to the ground, break the government, or (possibly) irrevocably break the functionality of the Senate if it meant defeating Obama. I don't see the same level of political and policy ruthlessness from Schumer or Pelosi.
Some are fine with McConnell's hardball tactics. Some think Reid/Schumer started it and blame the dems (DDS?). Some think he is no better or worse then the Dems. Regardless of any of that, I believe McConnell's actions have been bad for democracy and bad for our country. Whether similar games were played by democratic leaders or not does nothing to justify McConnell's actions.

But the point that I think Tanq and OO are making, and with which I agree, is that democrats are quick to criticize McConnell, but seem unwilling to criticize their own leaders for similar or worse conduct. And frankly, I think the behavior of Pelosi and Schumer has been far worse than anything McConnell ever did. I really don't think he played hardball enough. Certainly there were never movements to impeach Obama based upon grounds that were sketchy at best.

(02-03-2020 11:02 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 09:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tell me, do you really think that, say, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have not had the goal of making Donald Trump a one-term president (or less)?

Yes, Pelosi and Schumer have the goal of making Trump a 1-term president. No, I don't have a problem, in theory, of McConnell having had a goal of making Obama a 1-term president. The problem to me is the execution of the goal. To me, it is totally fine to fundraise and campaign. It is ok to negotiate on legislation. It is not OK to slam the breaks on bipartisan legislation, play games with the debt ceiling, etc. So my impression of McConnell's actions is that he was perfectly willing to let the country burn to the ground, break the government, or (possibly) irrevocably break the functionality of the Senate if it meant defeating Obama. I don't see the same level of political and policy ruthlessness from Schumer or Pelosi.

Some are fine with McConnell's hardball tactics. Some think Reid/Schumer started it and blame the dems (DDS?). Some think he is no better or worse then the Dems. Regardless of any of that, I believe McConnell's actions have been bad for democracy and bad for our country. Whether similar games were played by democratic leaders or not does nothing to justify McConnell's actions.

So the Resistance is just a PAC? Hillary said she was joining, i wonder how much she gave.

I can agree with your last sentence, but I find the actions of Democrats and their leaders to be orders of magnitude worse. When you can point o investigations and impeachments, false dossiers and lying to FISA courts, call me back. But the frustrating thing is the blind insistence by your side that the problems with Democrat actions are orders of magnitude less.

The opposition in congress is not supposed to rubberstamp the president's policies and actions. Mac didn't, now Schumer doesn't. Why do you think one is better than the other? Oh, yeah, the letter behind the name that indicates if they are good or bad.

(02-03-2020 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But the point that I think Tanq and OO are making, and with which I agree, is that democrats are quick to criticize McConnell, but seem unwilling to criticize their own leaders for similar or worse conduct. And frankly, I think the behavior of Pelosi and Schumer has been far worse than anything McConnell ever did.

Exactly. Democratic double standard.

The issue really took root in 2010, *after* the Republicans rolled the House.

And the comments were made with the express intent of generating a moderating influence on the Obama administration relative to conservative viewpoints. Which the Community Organizer in Chief actually did not moderate. In contrast, both Shrub and Willie moderated in the happenstance of losing a branch, or not having one completely on his side. Clinton did so, and immediately vaulted his administration into probably one of the most successful ones of my lifetime, tbh.

So, in terms of 'gridlock' big, it takes two to do that, mind you. Why not the rancor to the Obama administration for no attempt at moderation? Or attempts at conciliation? Funny thing, I seemingly remember Obama pulling an abrupt about face on the "Grand Deal" with Boehner after the long agenda of secret meetings.

Memories seem very one sided in the power to indict around here.

To be honest, absolutely McConnell did a stalwart job of 'no more of everything that the opposition wanted'. Funny thing is, what the Community Organizer in Chief wanted and what conservatives and conservative leaners (i.e. Tea Partiers) supported were pretty much a non-overlapping Venn diagram.

Yet somehow *only* McConnell gets tagged with the 'obstruction' tag. Amazing that.

Honestly speaking, we have faced the exact issue in the last 1.5 years with the House being firmly under a very left leaning House. Pretty much nothing to come out of it excepting the countless inquiries and an impeachment vote. But having nothing happen given the very large divide between Administration wants and the goals of the (very left leaning) House arent really a surprise to me; and they arent to you either based upon a lack of criticism of the last 1.5 years of non-movement.

But lordy, reverse polarity, replace Orange Hair with Community Organizer, and replace the legislative branch with two Republican branches and we have a major miscarriage of protocol. Do you see why one might be somewhat askance at that?

(02-03-2020 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But the point that I think Tanq and OO are making, and with which I agree, is that democrats are quick to criticize McConnell, but seem unwilling to criticize their own leaders for similar or worse conduct. And frankly, I think the behavior of Pelosi and Schumer has been far worse than anything McConnell ever did. I really don't think he played hardball enough. Certainly there were never movements to impeach Obama based upon grounds that were sketchy at best.

But that's the rub. You think Pelosi and Schumer have worse conduct, we think McConnell has worse conduct. I don't see any reason to believe that one of us will ever convince the other.

The idea that McConnell didn't play enough hardball is pretty mesmerizing though. He held open a Supreme Court seat for 11 months (Scalia's death until Trump's inauguration). He got rid of blue slips on judicial nominees. He severely limited questioning of judicial nominees. He pushed through numerous judicial nominees deemed not qualified by the ABA. He repeatedly sits on bipartisan legislation. I don't see what more he could have done.

Riddle me this, what bipartisan legislation has the Senate passed that Pelosi blocked?

(02-03-2020 11:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I can agree with your last sentence, but I find the actions of Democrats and their leaders to be orders of magnitude worse. When you can point o investigations and impeachments, false dossiers and lying to FISA courts, call me back. But the frustrating thing is the blind insistence by your side that the problems with Democrat actions are orders of magnitude less.

I'll just reiterate the same point I made in response to 69/70/75. This one is very subjective. You think Pelosi and Schumer are worse. I think McConnell is worse. Hard to find objective evidence. At one point (maybe a month ago) I provided a list of bipartisan legislation that passed the house and McConnell refused to bring up for a vote (because he knew it was highly likely to pass). I believe at the time I asked if any of the conservatives could provide a similar list of bipartisan legislation that Pelosi or Reid/Schumer killed and I don't think any of the conservatives got back to me on that.

I find it equal parts amusing and confusing that some of the conservatives here go out of their way to proclaim that they are not Republicans, but then proceed to parrot the Fox News talking points on impeachment and investigations. I think Trump should be impeached over his conduct regarding Ukraine. I also think that if Democrat did something similar, he/she should be impeached. If Buttigieg asked China for dirt on the Trump family and offered future trade benefits if he gets elected in return, I would be horrified and support his immediate impeachment if he was elected. So I guess at least I'm not a hypocrite.

As for your other Fox News talking points, the FISA stuff isn't really a partisan issue. Law enforcement overreach is not an issue that I believe favors one party or ideology over the other. That doesn't mean it isn't a problem. Remember, part of the reason Comey announced the re-opening of the Clinton email investigation 1 week before the election is because there were rumors that DOJ employees in SDNY were going to leak the story. Rudy Giuliani basically admitted as much just before the Comey announcement:

Quote:On Oct. 25, 2016, three days before Mr. Comey’s stunning announcement, Mr. Giuliani appeared on a Fox morning television show.

“We got a couple of surprises left,” Mr. Giuliani said.

He chortled, and when asked to expand on the subject, replied, “And I think it’ll be enormously effective.”

On Thursday, Oct. 27, Mr. Giuliani appeared on another Fox show and said he was talking about “pretty big surprises.” He added, “We’ve got a couple of things up our sleeve that should turn this thing around.”

The news of the reactivated email inspection arrived the following day and may have helped propel Mr. Trump closer to the presidency.

(02-03-2020 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Funny thing, I seemingly remember Obama pulling an abrupt about face on the "Grand Deal" with Boehner after the long agenda of secret meetings.

Links demonstrating that Obama was to blame for the Grande Bargain falling apart? This article from The Hill doesn't suggest enough evidence to support your proposition. Both sides blamed the other side.

(02-03-2020 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Memories seem very one sided in the power to indict around here.

I was just thinking the same thing, but probably not in the way you meant it.

(02-03-2020 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  To be honest, absolutely McConnell did a stalwart job of 'no more of everything that the opposition wanted'. Funny thing is, what the Community Organizer in Chief wanted and what conservatives and conservative leaners (i.e. Tea Partiers) supported were pretty much a non-overlapping Venn diagram.

Yet somehow *only* McConnell gets tagged with the 'obstruction' tag. Amazing that.

Again, I previously provided a list of bipartisan legislation that passed the House that McConnell has refused to bring to the floor. I think I also included bipartisan legislation that passed the Senate that Boehner/Ryan refused to bring to the floor. I am totally fine with them bringing these things to the floor and voting them down. My problem is when the won't even allow votes.

(02-03-2020 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Honestly speaking, we have faced the exact issue in the last 1.5 years with the House being firmly under a very left leaning House. Pretty much nothing to come out of it excepting the countless inquiries and an impeachment vote.

What bipartisan legislation has come out of the right leaning Senate in the last 1.5 years that Pelosi refused to put on the floor? What bipartisan legislation has come out the left leaning House the last 1.5 years that McConnell refused to put on the floor?