(06-22-2020 10:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  WRT Kavanaugh, I was "on Trump's side" because I thought the attacks on him were nothing but a dishonest attempt at political lynching. No, I did not believe Ms. Blasey Ford. There were too many instances of apparent lying--too afraid to fly but she flies all over the world, the thing about the two doors--and her appearance in the senate hearing could not possibly have been "compelling" to anyone not already prejudiced to believe her.

I didn't think the evidence was strong enough to disqualify Kavanaugh because of Blasey-Ford (even though apparently some think me a bot). I thought Kavanaugh lied under oath about how much he drank in college (which is a stupid thing to lie about) and I didn't think he demonstrated the temperment necessary during his hearings. Additionally, I thought he was misleading at best about his role in some of the more controversial actions and nominations during the W Bush administration (some of which I acknowledge we can't really tell whether he was misleading or not because of the lack of document production on the topics).

(06-22-2020 10:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  WRT impeachment, I thought ut was another dishonest attempt at political lynching, with no actual direct first-hand evidence of any misconduct on the part of Donald Trump, and parts of the story have kind of fallen apart sine then.

I completely disagree, but thank you for reiterating the uber-Trump supporter argument. Also, it is hard to get "actual direct first-hand evidence" when the people with such evidence refused to testify before the House or Senate.

(06-22-2020 10:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And I find it interesting that you are somehow able to discern that we take our marching orders from Fox & Friends, when as nearly as I can determine, neither you nor any of us happen to watch the show.

I never said you or anyone else "takes your marching orders from Fox & Friends". To quote a great philosopher, "So far, you're doing a pretty good job of suggesting that you are at least incapable of understanding basic statements from me." I said that your arguments are frequently the same as that cohort. Also, I don't mean that in the literal sense.

(06-22-2020 10:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nobody on the left has given me any reason to vote FOR any of your candidates, except that they're not Trump. I'll admit that giving me a reason to vote for a democrat is a daunting task given the policy positions that you'd have to overcome.

(1) you are smart enough to get this information on your own (and I suspect you have it); (2) why would anyone waste there time trying to convince you personally to vote for a democrat when you have said hundreds of times over the last few months that you literally hate them and think they are evil; and (3) perhaps you would vote for a democrat like Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards? He is at least closer to you on abortion.

(06-22-2020 10:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I do not favor the republicans. I have pretty much made my preferred policy positions well known, and I don't see republicans embracing them--although not as far away from them as democrats. So right now republicans are no better than the enemy of my enemy.

I am curious which issues you think you are closer to democrats and which you are closer to Republicans. I think you are closer to democrats on healthcare, as I think you would have a much easier time convincing democrats to support a version of your bismarck model than convincing Republicans to support any kind of universal-type coverage (otherwise they would have put it forward as their Obama-care replacement).

(06-22-2020 10:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 09:34 AM)mrbig Wrote:  You actually don't, you repeat yourself a lot.

Actually, yes I do, because you don't get it. And you claim not to be an idiot.

The democrat left are my enemies. If you support them, then you are my enemy, too.

(06-22-2020 09:34 AM)mrbig Wrote:  You want to fit everyone who disagrees with you into this box, call it Trumpbots, where we take our orders from Fox & Friends and unthinkingly support everything that Donald Trump says or does.

This is not at all what I said. To again quote a great philosopher, "So far, you're doing a pretty good job of suggesting that you are at least incapable of understanding basic statements from me."

(06-22-2020 10:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 10:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 09:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  To me, (any)-bot means somebody who will vote for that (any) without thought or regard to issues or qualifications.

I think all of us are thoughtful about our decision-making and none of us our bots.

I disagree. I think all of you here supported the Democrat in the last X elections and will support the Democrat in the next Y elections, regardless of who he/she is and regardless of their stances on the issues. I would be happy to proven wrong on the Y.

So much for my fig leaf

(06-22-2020 10:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 10:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 09:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The reasons some raise to oppose him seem petty or contrived. The reasons I support him are in black and white in the BLS stats. Rising employment. Rising wages. Rising economy.

What does the economy need to look like in November for you to not vote for Trump? Put it in writing now and let's see what comes to pass!

The Covid epidemic and subsequent economic closures have skewed the stats. I primarily place my faaith on the economic stats prior to the Covid derailment. I also note that the economy is coming back, as evidence by my retirement funds regaining over half of the 30% they lost. But this is also based on what the Democrats (the only alternative) say they want to do once they get into power - and all of their goals are to undo what Trump did. Wealth tax, estate tax, income tax, GND, BLM, yada, yada, yada - not a good policy in sight. Perhaps you could explain to me how those policy reversals will help the economy.

So you can't articulate anything that could happen with the economy in the next 4+ months that would dissuade you from voting for Trump based on his economic success? Just trying to be clear.

(06-22-2020 10:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Uniguely horrible, I think, in this instance means impolite. He is a rather direct person, I agree. He say what he thinks and doesn't disguise it for the media. I think direct is preferable to sneaky, like most standard politicians.

If I meant impolite, I would have written impolite. I may not have tanq's vocabulary, but give me some credit. I think his response to the coronoavirus has been significantly worse than the vast majority of presidential republican primary candidates (over the past 3 or 4 elections) would have been if they were president. Same for the response to BLM/police use of force protests. Same with regard to his disdain for the free press. Same with his trampling of many norms. Just my opinion, but that is why in my opinion he is uniquely horrible on substance.

(06-22-2020 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 10:01 AM)mrbig Wrote:  To the extent there is any "hysteria" on the left (as you put it), it is because we believe Trump is uniquely horrible.

Since you expect us to accept that your "hysteria" (or whatever you want to call it) is based upon your belief that Trump is uniquely horrible, can you accept in return that we believe that Pelosi, Schumer, and Biden (and anyone on Biden's laundry list of VP running mates) are incredibly (I don't use "uniquely" because uniquely implies there is only one) horrible?

I didn't call it hysteria, I used quotes because that is what OO called it and I was quoting him. Sure, I accept that you believe Pelosi, Schumer and Biden (and the rest of the gang!) are incredibly horrible. I believe this because I don't think you a liar and you have written it many many times.

(06-22-2020 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The democrats are my enemies, because they support policy positions that I believe to be harmful to the USA, and particularly to me.

Are we really enemies? Were Alexander Hamilton and James Madison enemies of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry?

(06-22-2020 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Trump is no better than the enemy of my enemies, but that makes him a friend of sorts. It really is kind of like FDR and Churchill supporting Stalin against Hitler. That's an analogy, and the only historic one that comes to mind, not calling Trump Stalin (he's better than Stalin) or the democrats Hitler (they're better than Hitler), so don't go getting your panties in a wad.

I don't wear panties, but I always appreciate the little bits of sexism that seep out when you decide to insult someone.

(06-22-2020 12:32 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 09:34 AM)mrbig Wrote:  You hate hate hate democrats and liberals and progressives so much more than anything else.

I don't think Owl#'s or anyone else here hates liberals. And from what I have seen, many of the folks here who call themselves "progressives" are actually liberals, not "prog-bots". That is why there is at least some cause for hope.

I would modify this statement; I think there is a world of difference between the philosophies embodied by the word 'liberal' on one hand and the word 'progressive' on the other.

The left has made a mockery of itself in promoting 'liberal' values, in all honesty.

(06-22-2020 11:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In 2016, there were 17 people running for the Republican nomination, and Trump was about 14th-16th in my estimation. Kasich (correctly spelled)was actually my first #1 and Rubio got my vote in the Texas primary. Trump never rose to be my #1, one reason I did not cast a vote in the Presidential race in 2016.

So if that fits your definition of a Trumpbot, so be it.

(06-22-2020 12:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I note what OO said, that that statement is a condemnation of that following list implicitly.

Here is an odd one, I can actually name a Democrat, actually two for that matter, that ran and I would have actually thought seriously about voting for over Trump.

And I can name about 4-5 others that I would do the same, albeit they did not run.

Kind of an odd stance for a supposed 'trump-bot'.

First person to correctly answer that mrbig doesn't think any of the conservatives here (other than possibly GoodOwl) are Trump-bots or any kind of bots wins an exciting MCU-themed gif!!!

(06-22-2020 12:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I wonder if big can name *any* Republican that he would vote for.

Vote for over Clinton or Biden? Probably not for President in 2016 or 2020 with Republicans in charge of the Senate. Also, most of the Republicans I liked have switched parties or are not really in politics these days (Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chaffee, Christine Todd Whitman, Olympia Snow, etc.).

(06-22-2020 12:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You crow about the 'hate' running through Trump and Trump supporters.

Actually, I mostly crowed about 69/70/75 using the word hate repeatedly.

(06-22-2020 12:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Hate to tell you the progs arent a whole hill of beans better in the vitriol, perhaps you should take some blinders off there.

Did I say no one on the left hates Trump? I don't believe I ever suggested such a thing. I leave it to you to point it out if I did ... son!

(06-22-2020 12:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Next time you make such an incisive comment, perhaps you should engender a little self-reflection on your side of the aisle over history. Might be a tad enlightening. Or not. Your choice.

I am not hear speaking on behalf of all leftists ever. I didn't realize that was my role and I reject it if you try to place this mantle upon me. Mostly just speaking for myself.

(06-22-2020 12:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Your focus on Trump supporters hating without any reference to anything else emanating from the left over the last 20 years is one masterfully awesome job at gaslighting. Good grief.

Many democrats, progressives, and self-described liberals hate Trump. This is so obvious I didn't think I needed to mention it. No gaslighting here bro. Of course, my comment was really made in response to 69/70/75 calling people like me his enemy and saying he hates people with my beliefs.

(06-22-2020 12:49 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Also, it is hard to get "actual direct first-hand evidence" when the people with such evidence refused to testify before the House or Senate.

Even doubly so when the House didnt even bother with its subpoena power. But, you know that. Funny you dont bother with that. I suggest you quit the one-sided, trying for the gaslighting approach, big.

Quote:I said that your arguments are frequently the same as that cohort.

So, since many of *yours* are carbon copy images of those from Vox, then what do your previous words and attacks reflect upon you?

You note that 'many of my positions are that of Trump', yet those same 'many of my positions' are those of a whole cohort of people as well. And many others aside from the three that you note are in the realm of even other cohorts. That really surfical verbiage you attempt above might work on some dumb*** Crescent City jury. It may not necessarily pass muster here.

That angle of argument is really only a half-step above being fairly dishonest, mind you.

(06-22-2020 12:56 PM)mrbig Wrote:  So you can't articulate anything that could happen with the economy in the next 4+ months that would dissuade you from voting for Trump based on his economic success? Just trying to be clear.

With the economy? No. I don't see the current state of the economy as due to Trump. I look to the state of the economy before COVID.

Now to look to the bigger picture: Is there ANYthing that would make me choose to NOT vote for Trump, as was my action in 2016?

Sure. Direct, incontrovertible evidence of malfeasance and corruption. So far, we are much closer to that for Biden than trump, IMO. But yeah, all the unlikely and improbable stuff the left has spent years and millions in trying to pin on him - and failed. The stuff that leftist icon Schiff said was in plain view, right there on the table.

Now to the biggest picture: Is there ANYthing that would make me vote for Biden.
Maybe. Exposure of the RNC as a Nazi Russian agency might do it. The discovery that Biden is actually the Second Coming might. A brain tumor might.

Quote:

(06-22-2020 10:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Uniguely horrible, I think, in this instance means impolite. He is a rather direct person, I agree. He say what he thinks and doesn't disguise it for the media. I think direct is preferable to sneaky, like most standard politicians.

If I meant impolite, I would have written impolite. I may not have tanq's vocabulary, but give me some credit. I think his response to the coronoavirus has been significantly worse than the vast majority of presidential republican primary candidates (over the past 3 or 4 elections) would have been if they were president. Same for the response to BLM/police use of force protests. Same with regard to his disdain for the free press. Same with his trampling of many norms. Just my opinion, but that is why in my opinion he is uniquely horrible on substance.

You seem to have the free press confused with the MSM. Actually, I think free press better describes the Fox and Friends you so heartily disapprove of solely on the basis of what you hear from others.

Trump uses Twitter so that what he says does not have to pass through the filter of a biased media.

Trampling of norms - isn't that what a previous presidential candidate called "change"? Lots of people in this country want change - just not always the same "from this" to "this".

I think the Civil rights Act trampled a lot of norms.

I said "impolite" because we so often hear from the left that he is horrible because of the way he spoke to (________________), or because of what he said to (____________________________) or about (____________).

I would not mind a president who was more judicious in his speech. I would very much mind a President who was more judicious in his speech while vigorously pursuing the wrong goals, in the wrong way, with the wrong people.

(06-22-2020 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 12:49 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Also, it is hard to get "actual direct first-hand evidence" when the people with such evidence refused to testify before the House or Senate.

Even doubly so when the House didnt even bother with its subpoena power. But, you know that. Funny you dont bother with that. I suggest you quit the one-sided, trying for the gaslighting approach, big.

Did I miss the part where Pompeo, Mulvaney, Perry, Giuliani, and others complied with their House subpoenas?

(06-22-2020 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  That really surfical verbiage you attempt above might work on some dumb*** Crescent City jury. It may not necessarily pass muster here.

Never had a jury trial, so I guess I wouldn't know. Couple handfuls of bench trials is all I have. I am still more qualified than a bunch of recent circuit court appointees and nominees though!

(06-22-2020 01:35 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  That really surfical verbiage you attempt above might work on some dumb*** Crescent City jury. It may not necessarily pass muster here.

Never had a jury trial, so I guess I wouldn't know. Couple handfuls of bench trials is all I have. I am still more qualified than a bunch of recent circuit court appointees and nominees though!

In your unbiased opinion, of course. Probably more qualified than Lincoln.

(06-22-2020 01:35 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  That really surfical verbiage you attempt above might work on some dumb*** Crescent City jury. It may not necessarily pass muster here.

Never had a jury trial, so I guess I wouldn't know. Couple handfuls of bench trials is all I have. I am still more qualified than a bunch of recent circuit court appointees and nominees though!

In your unbiased opinion, of course. Probably more qualified than Lincoln.

(06-22-2020 01:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 12:56 PM)mrbig Wrote:  So you can't articulate anything that could happen with the economy in the next 4+ months that would dissuade you from voting for Trump based on his economic success? Just trying to be clear.

With the economy? No. I don't see the current state of the economy as due to Trump. I look to the state of the economy before COVID.

Inherently, this means you think Trump did a good enough job on his COVID response that the economic fall-out could not have been minimized by a better response. Similarly, you think he is doing good enough on COVID now that the economy could not be improving at a more rapid and/or sustained pace. Correct?

(06-22-2020 01:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You seem to have the free press confused with the MSM. Actually, I think free press better describes the Fox and Friends you so heartily disapprove of solely on the basis of what you hear from others.

When I think of the free press I think of journalists. That includes the MSM as well as many other outlets (including significantly local journalists). I think Fox & Friends is an opinion show, not journalism, so I do not include them as part of the free press.

(06-22-2020 01:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:35 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  That really surfical verbiage you attempt above might work on some dumb*** Crescent City jury. It may not necessarily pass muster here.

Never had a jury trial, so I guess I wouldn't know. Couple handfuls of bench trials is all I have. I am still more qualified than a bunch of recent circuit court appointees and nominees though!

In your unbiased opinion, of course. Probably more qualified than Lincoln.

What is this garbage that you spout? If wikipedia is correct, Abraham Lincoln appeared before the Illinois Supreme Court 175 times. That would make him way way way way more qualified for an appellate court seat then me! And I read on other sites that he had hundreds of jury trials, making him way way way way more qualified for a district court seat then me! Is he still around? Because I'd be totally fine with Trump appointing someone of his caliber.

(06-22-2020 01:35 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 12:49 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Also, it is hard to get "actual direct first-hand evidence" when the people with such evidence refused to testify before the House or Senate.

Even doubly so when the House didnt even bother with its subpoena power. But, you know that. Funny you dont bother with that. I suggest you quit the one-sided, trying for the gaslighting approach, big.

Did I miss the part where Pompeo, Mulvaney, Perry, Giuliani, and others complied with their House subpoenas?

Did I miss the part about 'qualified immunity' issues?

Did I miss the part about executive privilege issues?

Perhaps you did.

For the kicker: Did I miss the part where the House sought *any* judicial redress re: the above?

Funny that.

Quote:

(06-22-2020 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  That really surfical verbiage you attempt above might work on some dumb*** Crescent City jury. It may not necessarily pass muster here.

Never had a jury trial, so I guess I wouldn't know. Couple handfuls of bench trials is all I have.

Then you should be rather self-mortified at that horseshit stunt then. I would.

(06-22-2020 01:39 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 12:56 PM)mrbig Wrote:  So you can't articulate anything that could happen with the economy in the next 4+ months that would dissuade you from voting for Trump based on his economic success? Just trying to be clear.

With the economy? No. I don't see the current state of the economy as due to Trump. I look to the state of the economy before COVID.

Inherently, this means you think Trump did a good enough job on his COVID response that the economic fall-out could not have been minimized by a better response. Similarly, you think he is doing good enough on COVID now that the economy could not be improving at a more rapid and/or sustained pace. Correct?

(06-22-2020 01:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You seem to have the free press confused with the MSM. Actually, I think free press better describes the Fox and Friends you so heartily disapprove of solely on the basis of what you hear from others.

When I think of the free press I think of journalists. That includes the MSM as well as many other outlets (including significantly local journalists). I think Fox & Friends is an opinion show, not journalism, so I do not include them as part of the free press.

You think of the MSM as journalists?

I don't know if F&F is an opinion show, like Hannity or AC360, but it sounds like a panel discussion show. Ask one of your sources if that is so, or better yet, watch it once.

As for the economy, it might(!) be doing better if the Trump response had been 20 days or 20 hours or 20 minutes faster, but I judge Trump's economy on what it was after three years of his leadership. I do not expect perfection from Trump, nor do I believe you would expect perfection from anybody else but Trump. Specifically, I think you would be making all sorts of excuses for President Hillary if the exact same thing was happening with Covid, but starting with a worse economy. JMHO.

(06-22-2020 01:26 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 12:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You crow about the 'hate' running through Trump and Trump supporters.

Actually, I mostly crowed about 69/70/75 using the word hate repeatedly.

I can point out your stupid ass comments to me as well. Quite the incomplete recitation there, and over a really short timeframe as well.

Quote:

(06-22-2020 12:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Hate to tell you the progs arent a whole hill of beans better in the vitriol, perhaps you should take some blinders off there.

Did I say no one on the left hates Trump? I don't believe I ever suggested such a thing.

Yet you are the one jumping up and downing and flapping your wings about all the hate -- but only from the other side. That myopia is what I am talking about.

Quote:I leave it to you to point it out if I did ... son!

Well if you want to start the asshat train, good for you. Son.

Quote:

(06-22-2020 12:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Next time you make such an incisive comment, perhaps you should engender a little self-reflection on your side of the aisle over history. Might be a tad enlightening. Or not. Your choice.

I am not hear speaking on behalf of all leftists ever. I didn't realize that was my role and I reject it if you try to place this mantle upon me. Mostly just speaking for myself.

Not the point I was making, son. I couldnt give a rat's ass on *whom* you are 'speaking for'. The point is that you are flapping your wings about the 'hate' from the other side. My simple point is to take off your myopia inducing glasses, look at your side's 'love and butterflies and unicorn farts' (sarcasm), and the massive amount of timeframe of that lovey **** that has emanated from the left.

Perhaps then, you might realize your preachy **** is kind of stupid in context.

Quote:

(06-22-2020 12:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Your focus on Trump supporters hating without any reference to anything else emanating from the left over the last 20 years is one masterfully awesome job at gaslighting. Good grief.

Many democrats, progressives, and self-described liberals hate Trump. This is so obvious I didn't think I needed to mention it. No gaslighting here bro. Of course, my comment was really made in response to 69/70/75 calling people like me his enemy and saying he hates people with my beliefs.

My comment to you is when you ostensibly denote everyone with whom you might disagree as emanating hate, sometimes that 'preachy ****' looks kind of stupid in context -- both with a political lens and with a historical lens.

(06-22-2020 01:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:35 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 12:49 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Also, it is hard to get "actual direct first-hand evidence" when the people with such evidence refused to testify before the House or Senate.

Even doubly so when the House didnt even bother with its subpoena power. But, you know that. Funny you dont bother with that. I suggest you quit the one-sided, trying for the gaslighting approach, big.

Did I miss the part where Pompeo, Mulvaney, Perry, Giuliani, and others complied with their House subpoenas?

Did I miss the part about 'qualified immunity' issues?

Did I miss the part about executive privilege issues?

Perhaps you did.

For the kicker: Did I miss the part where the House sought *any* judicial redress re: the above?

Funny that.

You literally wrote "the House didnt even bother with its subpoena power." I just pointed out that the House did "bother" with its subpoena power by, you know, issuing subpoenas. Many of those subpoenas were not complied with including by some who would have had the "actual direct first-hand evidence" that you so crave. Enforcing the subpoenas would have required taking lawsuits up through the Supreme Court which could have taken many months. I think the House should have done it, but they made a different decision. Still, the House "bothered" with its subpoena power.

(06-22-2020 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:35 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  That really surfical verbiage you attempt above might work on some dumb*** Crescent City jury. It may not necessarily pass muster here.

Never had a jury trial, so I guess I wouldn't know. Couple handfuls of bench trials is all I have.

Then you should be rather self-mortified at that horseshit stunt then. I would.

I can feel the righteous indignation flowing through your veins. I'm not self-mortified by some half-flippant online post to a bunch of non-trump-bot conservative libertarians. If that is the line where I should be self-moritifed, then I have much bigger problems.

(06-22-2020 03:28 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:35 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Even doubly so when the House didnt even bother with its subpoena power. But, you know that. Funny you dont bother with that. I suggest you quit the one-sided, trying for the gaslighting approach, big.

Did I miss the part where Pompeo, Mulvaney, Perry, Giuliani, and others complied with their House subpoenas?

Did I miss the part about 'qualified immunity' issues?

Did I miss the part about executive privilege issues?

Perhaps you did.

For the kicker: Did I miss the part where the House sought *any* judicial redress re: the above?

Funny that.

You literally wrote "the House didnt even bother with its subpoena power." I just pointed out that the House did "bother" with its subpoena power by, you know, issuing subpoenas. Many of those subpoenas were not complied with including by some who would have had the "actual direct first-hand evidence" that you so crave. Enforcing the subpoenas would have required taking lawsuits up through the Supreme Court which could have taken many months. I think the House should have done it, but they made a different decision. Still, the House "bothered" with its subpoena power.

Perhaps it would be clearer if I said 'The House never bothered to try and enforce any subpoena in light of the issues of qualified immunity and executive privilege, it simply fired them off and promptly forgot about them.'

Better now? I mean, the original issue was your hopping up and down and squawking about 'no one testified' --- all the while utterly ignoring the House not bothering to try and enforce any single subpoena, and all the while seemingly utterly ignoring the very cogent issues of executive privilege and any associated qualified immunity at play. Funny how those relevant issues and contexts in your wing flapping seemingly get overlooked, isnt it?

So yes, they bothered in the surface, flippant, and check the box manner. If that is what you are advocating in your scream about 'no one testified' you would be correct. But, I would hope that the bar exam level issue of executive privilege might have penetrated that advocacy for the thoroughness of that 'check the box level of action', but apparently not.

In the realistic viewpoint of the world, checking the box and leaving the eggs out to rot on the doorstep in the midday summer son really isnt in my definition of 'bothered to', but if you think that is the bang up zeal that you seemingly lead us to believe -- then that is your issue. But, please dont piss on my leg and tell me that the act of filing the paper, knowing the issues of qualified immunity and executive privilege are at the very central core of the issue, then just walking away from that filing the paper really comes up to the snuff of 'bothering to' in any way, shape, or form for the normal observer.

I mean, its like you are trying to be an advocate and try and stuff the bad factual and contextual **** under the covers and hope no one notices....

Quote:

(06-22-2020 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:35 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  That really surfical verbiage you attempt above might work on some dumb*** Crescent City jury. It may not necessarily pass muster here.

Never had a jury trial, so I guess I wouldn't know. Couple handfuls of bench trials is all I have.

Then you should be rather self-mortified at that horseshit stunt then. I would.

I can feel the righteous indignation flowing through your veins. I'm not self-mortified by some half-flippant online post to a bunch of non-trump-bot conservative libertarians. If that is the line where I should be self-moritifed, then I have much bigger problems.

Not 'righteous indignation' -- just pointing out the somewhat important items you keep 'forgetting' to include. Bummer about that, isnt it?

Again: I mean, its like you are trying to be an advocate and try and stuff the bad factual and contextual **** under the covers and hope no one notices.

(06-22-2020 02:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:26 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I leave it to you to point it out if I did ... son!

Well if you want to start the asshat train, good for you. Son.

If you have stopped talking down to people on this forum by repeatedly referring to them as "son" since I left, then I apologize for my comment. I assumed you were still doing it. My only solace is your apparent admission that referring to others as "son" makes you an asshat (and obviously me as well for doing it a few times)!

(06-22-2020 02:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 01:26 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 12:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Your focus on Trump supporters hating without any reference to anything else emanating from the left over the last 20 years is one masterfully awesome job at gaslighting. Good grief.

Many democrats, progressives, and self-described liberals hate Trump. This is so obvious I didn't think I needed to mention it. No gaslighting here bro. Of course, my comment was really made in response to 69/70/75 calling people like me his enemy and saying he hates people with my beliefs.

My comment to you is when you ostensibly denote everyone with whom you might disagree as emanating hate, sometimes that 'preachy ****' looks kind of stupid in context -- both with a political lens and with a historical lens.

I did not "ostensibly denote everyone with whom you might disagree as emanating hate." That is just a steaming pile of and doesn't resemble what I wrote.

My comment was directed to 69/70/75, who literally wrote in this forum today that he hates "the democrats" and considers them his "enemy" and evil, and referred to the major democratic leaders as "grotesque human beings". I, to contrast myself with 69/70/75's volcanic spew of admitted hate, posted a funny Star Wars gif about hate. I further noted that Trump and "[l]ots of the strongest Trump supporters seem to have ... hate". I stand by my comment that 69/70/75 hates since he stated so himself. I stand by my comment that Trump seems to have lots of hate. And I stand by my comment that lots of Trump's strongest supporters do as well. Certainly not all Trump supporters (as my comment was limited to his "strongest supporters") and my comment did not even include a significant number of people that don't consider themselves Trump "supporters" but ultimately either voted for him in 2016 or will vote for him in 2020 even though they don't love him.

I am certain that you read legal filings more carefully that you have read my comments today. It is the same with me.