(10-10-2023 10:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-10-2023 09:51 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  One day, Tanq is going to wake up and sh*t his bed when he realizes that he, DavidSt, and RedWingTom were all on the same page for so long.........

Please tell us this gamut and world of issues I am in lockstep with the two on. I'm interested to see this deep well of issue

****, his pea-brain can't possibly comprehend such things. If it's anything beyond taints and genitalia, and sophomoric trolling, he's hapless.

(10-10-2023 09:52 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(10-10-2023 09:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2023 09:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-10-2023 09:20 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  You guys are gonna make him mad again.

More entertained by the ignorant idiots around here who happily regurgitate slop.

And cant forget the second level of ignorant idiots that seemingly can do nothing but talk 7th grade smack with zero substance.

It's absolutely stunning the lengths they go to protect and cover for dear leader. I actually think they believe that he gives two ***** about them.

#ETTD

Your hypocrisy is showing, Ace

Sure thing, sport.

And I'd for once like to see any of you manage to articulate an actual thing I've been hypocritical about.

Message to the board. Tanq is basically a good guy.

I don't understand his position on these issues, but we have hashed that out pretty thoroughly. We are both libertarians but with somewhat different slants. I'm putting words in Tanq's mouth here, but I think they fit, that he is a law-and-order guy and believes that the DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS bureaucracy, and related state and local law enforcement bureaucracies, are honest brokers enforcing the laws in an honest and non-partisan way. I believe the rank and file of law enforcement and national security are decent, honest people, but I believe that the career bureaucrats at the top are corrupt and power-hungry individuals who believe that their preferences should overrule the will of the people. I find the texts between Strzok and his squeeze from several years ago frightening, but revealing in that they state what I believe to be the beliefs of the likes of people at the tops of those agencies--the hell with the will of the American people, we will impose our views upon them. I was always opposed to the patRIOT act because it empowered those people to violate our constitutional rights in ways that did not exist before. What we have seen in the last 7 years or so is what I believe to be the inevitable result of permitting such abuses.

He believes that Donald Trump has committed severe violations of law because such has been alleged by those in law enforcement. I believe that the top law enforcement officiails (indluding Judge Engron) are so corrupt that I consider their representations to be unreliable and very likely untrue. In large part, my distrust of law enforcement and belief in their bias results becuase they have not prosecuted, or even investigated, what appear to be much more severe violations by others. I will wait to see what proves up in court (and perhaps more importantly, what survives after appeal) before making a decision.

So Tanq is certain that Trump has committed crimes, but apparently uncertain as to the honesty and reliability of law enforcement. I am certain that top law enforcement officials are so biased and dishonest that I do not trust their assertions about Trump.

(10-09-2023 06:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-09-2023 06:06 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 11:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 12:28 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 12:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  It could well be what you say. Or it could be that Trump has a long history of this. I dont know which it is.

Why don't you answer the question ? It's a simple yes or no answer.

I have answered the question.

The question is (was) "“do YOU believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for any other real estate developer"

"I dont know" is an answer -- and a valid one. Maybe not the one *you* like, but it reflects my mind set.

Kind of like what my answer would be to 'is music a better area of study than art'.

Do you believe this case has political motivations ? Yes or No

I. Dont. Know. That is my 'belief', even in light of all your thrashing on the word 'believe'.

Apparently that three word phrase is a too complex of a concept for you.

Too complex of a concept,nah. The question must be complicated for you to answer as yes or no when it is actually an opinion which you have a lot of around here from day in and day out.

(10-10-2023 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Message to the board. Tanq is basically a good guy.

I respectfully disagree.

As you call him "dear leader" may not give two hoots in Hell about me but I'll still take his performance as POTUS:

- no shooting and carnage in the Middle East
- no Russia / Ukraine war
- not $200M per day going to Ukraine for last 18 months
- US possession of $85B of war hardware in Afghanistan
- $1.80 gasoline
- inflation under control
- and yeah, some mean Tweets, some cringe-worthy, some brutally honest that no one else dare say

(10-10-2023 11:17 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-09-2023 06:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-09-2023 06:06 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 11:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 12:28 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Why don't you answer the question ? It's a simple yes or no answer.

I have answered the question.

The question is (was) "“do YOU believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for any other real estate developer"

"I dont know" is an answer -- and a valid one. Maybe not the one *you* like, but it reflects my mind set.

Kind of like what my answer would be to 'is music a better area of study than art'.

Do you believe this case has political motivations ? Yes or No

I. Dont. Know. That is my 'belief', even in light of all your thrashing on the word 'believe'.

Apparently that three word phrase is a too complex of a concept for you.

Too complex of a concept,nah. The question must be complicated for you to answer as yes or no when it is actually an opinion which you have a lot of around here from day in and day out.

There's not a yes or no answer when you don't know, knucklehead! Too complex for you, I know.

(10-10-2023 11:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2023 11:17 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-09-2023 06:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-09-2023 06:06 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 11:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I have answered the question.

The question is (was) "“do YOU believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for any other real estate developer"

"I dont know" is an answer -- and a valid one. Maybe not the one *you* like, but it reflects my mind set.

Kind of like what my answer would be to 'is music a better area of study than art'.

Do you believe this case has political motivations ? Yes or No

I. Dont. Know. That is my 'belief', even in light of all your thrashing on the word 'believe'.

Apparently that three word phrase is a too complex of a concept for you.

Too complex of a concept,nah. The question must be complicated for you to answer as yes or no when it is actually an opinion which you have a lot of around here from day in and day out.

There's not a yes or no answer when you don't know, knucklehead! Too complex for you, I know.

This conversation is a little over your head, go rep your boy some more.

(10-10-2023 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Message to the board. Tanq is basically a good guy.

I don't understand his position on these issues, but we have hashed that out pretty thoroughly. We are both libertarians but with somewhat different slants. I'm putting words in Tanq's mouth here, but I think they fit, that he is a law-and-order guy and believes that the DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS bureaucracy, and related state and local law enforcement bureaucracies, are honest brokers enforcing the laws in an honest and non-partisan way. I believe the rank and file of law enforcement and national security are decent, honest people, but I believe that the career bureaucrats at the top are corrupt and power-hungry individuals who believe that their preferences should overrule the will of the people. I find the texts between Strzok and his squeeze from several years ago frightening, but revealing in that they state what I believe to be the beliefs of the likes of people at the tops of those agencies--the hell with the will of the American people, we will impose our views upon them. I was always opposed to the patRIOT act because it empowered those people to violate our constitutional rights in ways that did not exist before. What we have seen in the last 7 years or so is what I believe to be the inevitable result of permitting such abuses.

He believes that Donald Trump has committed severe violations of law because such has been alleged by those in law enforcement. I believe that the top law enforcement officiails (indluding Judge Engron) are so corrupt that I consider their representations to be unreliable and very likely untrue. In large part, my distrust of law enforcement and belief in their bias results becuase they have not prosecuted, or even investigated, what appear to be much more severe violations by others. I will wait to see what proves up in court (and perhaps more importantly, what survives after appeal) before making a decision.

So Tanq is certain that Trump has committed crimes, but apparently uncertain as to the honesty and reliability of law enforcement. I am certain that top law enforcement officials are so biased and dishonest that I do not trust their assertions about Trump.

Thanks for the clarification #s. You did a good job for the most part above.

I'd clarify a few small points.

1. There *have* been overreaches by some DOJ with respect to the Trump camp. Most notably Strzok (mentioned above), and the related overreach with the Page FISA affidavits.

2. Had Trump not fired Comey, the predicate for a possibility of 'obstruction' that was in play by the Mueller investigation would have never been an issue. Mueller looked into that. Mueller cleared Trump of Russiagate (which was the right call), but punted on obstruction (dont know if that was the right call, but Mueller was well within reason to look into it. Not smart of Trump to give him the opening).

3. Impeachment 1 was a *political* overreach.

4. Trump should have been convicted of impeachment 2. Not for inciting, but for sitting on his ass throwing food at the wall when he couldnt get the vote delayed more, all the while doing *nothing* as a Commander in Chief to address the ongoing riot.

As for the bolded -- I am not 'certain'. But there is plenty of evidence to indicate that crimes were committed. And, not my problem that Trump was stupid enough to jump into those actions pell mell. If Trump is found guilty -- it is a result of his own actions and own stupidity. If Trump presents additional evidence that shows he is a 'victim' -- then he is free to present it. And if sufficient I have zero problem changing my mind on my current position.

5. I have zero issue with the charges at MAL. If Trump presents evidence that refutes what is known about the issue, I am free to change my mind. It seems highly evident that Trump obstructed justice in a number of ways in that issue. I have no issue charging someone who intentionally lies and does not fully comply with a subpoena, among many other instances of that behavior.

6. I have zero issue with the charges by J6 for his role in allegedly trying to usurp several state elections, and have their slates declared for him by the VP by fiat. If Trump presents evidence that refutes what is known about the issue, I am more than happy to change my mind. Ditto for the Fulton Co. indictment.

7. I think Bragg both overcharged, and stretched the law quite a bit to get his charges in. And, in addition, Bragg may very well have a serious issue with SoL. All in all, dont think these should be on the table at all.

8. Jean Carroll cases -- dont know, dont care. I do know that Trump presented *zero* evidence to refute Carroll's case. In a civil setting some vs none gets a verdict against you. Those are the cards Trump himself played there.

(10-10-2023 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Message to the board. Tanq is basically a good guy.

I don't understand his position on these issues, but we have hashed that out pretty thoroughly. We are both libertarians but with somewhat different slants. I'm putting words in Tanq's mouth here, but I think they fit, that he is a law-and-order guy and believes that the DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS bureaucracy, and related state and local law enforcement bureaucracies, are honest brokers enforcing the laws in an honest and non-partisan way. I believe the rank and file of law enforcement and national security are decent, honest people, but I believe that the career bureaucrats at the top are corrupt and power-hungry individuals who believe that their preferences should overrule the will of the people. I find the texts between Strzok and his squeeze from several years ago frightening, but revealing in that they state what I believe to be the beliefs of the likes of people at the tops of those agencies--the hell with the will of the American people, we will impose our views upon them. I was always opposed to the patRIOT act because it empowered those people to violate our constitutional rights in ways that did not exist before. What we have seen in the last 7 years or so is what I believe to be the inevitable result of permitting such abuses.

He believes that Donald Trump has committed severe violations of law because such has been alleged by those in law enforcement. I believe that the top law enforcement officiails (indluding Judge Engron) are so corrupt that I consider their representations to be unreliable and very likely untrue. In large part, my distrust of law enforcement and belief in their bias results becuase they have not prosecuted, or even investigated, what appear to be much more severe violations by others. I will wait to see what proves up in court (and perhaps more importantly, what survives after appeal) before making a decision.

So Tanq is certain that Trump has committed crimes, but apparently uncertain as to the honesty and reliability of law enforcement. I am certain that top law enforcement officials are so biased and dishonest that I do not trust their assertions about Trump.

Eh Tanq is not too bad.. He pontificates a pretty good bit.. I'm reminded of the scene from Justified where the mob boss tells Boyd that he uses 40 words to say something where 10 will do.

He at least tries to debate, but overwhelms you with wording like a lawyer typically does

Uh, Tanq, impeachment 2 wasn’t January 6, it was the phone call to Ukraine. The mere fact that even you can’t keep straight all the BS the left has thrown should tell you something.

(10-10-2023 01:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  2. Had Trump not fired Comey, the predicate for a possibility of 'obstruction' that was in play by the Mueller investigation would have never been an issue. Mueller looked into that. Mueller cleared Trump of Russiagate (which was the right call), but punted on obstruction (dont know if that was the right call, but Mueller was well within reason to look into it. Not smart of Trump to give him the opening).

I don't believe this is completely accurate.

Quote:Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the trump campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate donald j. trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.

While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

To find conspiracy, a prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime: an agreement between at least two people, to commit a criminal offense and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. One of the underlying criminal offenses that Mueller reviewed for conspiracy was campaign-finance violations. Mueller found that Trump campaign members donald trump jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in trump tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting. This meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish “willfulness,” that is, that the participants knew that their conduct was illegal. Mueller was also unable to conclude that the information was a “thing of value” that exceeded $25,000, the requirement for campaign finance to be a felony, as opposed to a civil violation of law. But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was acceptable. Trump campaign members welcomed foreign influence into our election and then compromised themselves with the Russian government by covering it up.

Mueller found other contacts with Russia, such as the sharing of polling data about Midwestern states where trump later won upset victories, conversations with the Russian ambassador to influence Russia’s response to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to election interference, and communications with Wikileaks after it had received emails stolen by Russia. While none of these acts amounted to the crime of conspiracy, all could be described as “collusion.”

These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t Die. Here’s Why They’re Wrong

(10-10-2023 02:20 PM)banker Wrote:  Uh, Tanq, impeachment 2 wasn’t January 6, it was the phone call to Ukraine. The mere fact that even you can’t keep straight all the BS the left has thrown should tell you something.

Huh?

Quote:On January 11, 2021, U.S. Representatives David Cicilline, along with Jamie Raskin and Ted Lieu, introduced an article of impeachment against trump, charging trump with "incitement of insurrection" in urging his supporters to march on the Capitol building.

Quote:The first impeachment of donald trump, the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, began on December 18, 2019, during the 116th United States Congress. The House of Representatives adopted two articles of impeachment against trump: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

(10-10-2023 02:20 PM)banker Wrote:  Uh, Tanq, impeachment 2 wasn’t January 6, it was the phone call to Ukraine. The mere fact that even you can’t keep straight all the BS the left has thrown should tell you something.

With all due respect, Impeachment 1 was Ukraine in '19, iirc. Impeachment 2 occurred just after J6, '21.

"Lawyer"

(10-10-2023 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Message to the board. Tanq is basically a good guy.

I don't understand his position on these issues, but we have hashed that out pretty thoroughly. We are both libertarians but with somewhat different slants. I'm putting words in Tanq's mouth here, but I think they fit, that he is a law-and-order guy and believes that the DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS bureaucracy, and related state and local law enforcement bureaucracies, are honest brokers enforcing the laws in an honest and non-partisan way. I believe the rank and file of law enforcement and national security are decent, honest people, but I believe that the career bureaucrats at the top are corrupt and power-hungry individuals who believe that their preferences should overrule the will of the people. I find the texts between Strzok and his squeeze from several years ago frightening, but revealing in that they state what I believe to be the beliefs of the likes of people at the tops of those agencies--the hell with the will of the American people, we will impose our views upon them. I was always opposed to the patRIOT act because it empowered those people to violate our constitutional rights in ways that did not exist before. What we have seen in the last 7 years or so is what I believe to be the inevitable result of permitting such abuses.

He believes that Donald Trump has committed severe violations of law because such has been alleged by those in law enforcement. I believe that the top law enforcement officiails (indluding Judge Engron) are so corrupt that I consider their representations to be unreliable and very likely untrue. In large part, my distrust of law enforcement and belief in their bias results becuase they have not prosecuted, or even investigated, what appear to be much more severe violations by others. I will wait to see what proves up in court (and perhaps more importantly, what survives after appeal) before making a decision.

So Tanq is certain that Trump has committed crimes, but apparently uncertain as to the honesty and reliability of law enforcement. I am certain that top law enforcement officials are so biased and dishonest that I do not trust their assertions about Trump.

I believe you to be level headed and a very intelligent human being….but….anyone who believes these government agencies to be honest and equal in their application of the law is a complete fool or a complete phony. This Tanq character is most definitely the latter. Which makes him much more dangerous. Your opinion of him is slanted by friendship and that much is understandable while still being troubling. Being friends with someone doesn’t mean taking a blind eye to a serious flaw of character.

(10-10-2023 08:09 PM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  "Lawyer"

(10-10-2023 11:28 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(10-10-2023 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Message to the board. Tanq is basically a good guy.

I respectfully disagree.

https://csnbbs.com/post-19197072.html#pid19197072

(10-10-2023 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Message to the board. Tanq is basically a good guy.

I don't understand his position on these issues, but we have hashed that out pretty thoroughly. We are both libertarians but with somewhat different slants. I'm putting words in Tanq's mouth here, but I think they fit, that he is a law-and-order guy and believes that the DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS bureaucracy, and related state and local law enforcement bureaucracies, are honest brokers enforcing the laws in an honest and non-partisan way. I believe the rank and file of law enforcement and national security are decent, honest people, but I believe that the career bureaucrats at the top are corrupt and power-hungry individuals who believe that their preferences should overrule the will of the people. I find the texts between Strzok and his squeeze from several years ago frightening, but revealing in that they state what I believe to be the beliefs of the likes of people at the tops of those agencies--the hell with the will of the American people, we will impose our views upon them. I was always opposed to the patRIOT act because it empowered those people to violate our constitutional rights in ways that did not exist before. What we have seen in the last 7 years or so is what I believe to be the inevitable result of permitting such abuses.

He believes that Donald Trump has committed severe violations of law because such has been alleged by those in law enforcement. I believe that the top law enforcement officiails (indluding Judge Engron) are so corrupt that I consider their representations to be unreliable and very likely untrue. In large part, my distrust of law enforcement and belief in their bias results becuase they have not prosecuted, or even investigated, what appear to be much more severe violations by others. I will wait to see what proves up in court (and perhaps more importantly, what survives after appeal) before making a decision.

So Tanq is certain that Trump has committed crimes, but apparently uncertain as to the honesty and reliability of law enforcement. I am certain that top law enforcement officials are so biased and dishonest that I do not trust their assertions about Trump.

Anybody with a brain knows that law enforcement can't be trusted after the last 6 years.

I was VERY much a law and order guy 6 years ago. I have been red-pilled.

(10-10-2023 01:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-10-2023 11:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Message to the board. Tanq is basically a good guy.

I don't understand his position on these issues, but we have hashed that out pretty thoroughly. We are both libertarians but with somewhat different slants. I'm putting words in Tanq's mouth here, but I think they fit, that he is a law-and-order guy and believes that the DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS bureaucracy, and related state and local law enforcement bureaucracies, are honest brokers enforcing the laws in an honest and non-partisan way. I believe the rank and file of law enforcement and national security are decent, honest people, but I believe that the career bureaucrats at the top are corrupt and power-hungry individuals who believe that their preferences should overrule the will of the people. I find the texts between Strzok and his squeeze from several years ago frightening, but revealing in that they state what I believe to be the beliefs of the likes of people at the tops of those agencies--the hell with the will of the American people, we will impose our views upon them. I was always opposed to the patRIOT act because it empowered those people to violate our constitutional rights in ways that did not exist before. What we have seen in the last 7 years or so is what I believe to be the inevitable result of permitting such abuses.

He believes that Donald Trump has committed severe violations of law because such has been alleged by those in law enforcement. I believe that the top law enforcement officiails (indluding Judge Engron) are so corrupt that I consider their representations to be unreliable and very likely untrue. In large part, my distrust of law enforcement and belief in their bias results becuase they have not prosecuted, or even investigated, what appear to be much more severe violations by others. I will wait to see what proves up in court (and perhaps more importantly, what survives after appeal) before making a decision.

So Tanq is certain that Trump has committed crimes, but apparently uncertain as to the honesty and reliability of law enforcement. I am certain that top law enforcement officials are so biased and dishonest that I do not trust their assertions about Trump.

Thanks for the clarification #s. You did a good job for the most part above.

I'd clarify a few small points.

1. There *have* been overreaches by some DOJ with respect to the Trump camp. Most notably Strzok (mentioned above), and the related overreach with the Page FISA affidavits.

2. Had Trump not fired Comey, the predicate for a possibility of 'obstruction' that was in play by the Mueller investigation would have never been an issue. Mueller looked into that. Mueller cleared Trump of Russiagate (which was the right call), but punted on obstruction (dont know if that was the right call, but Mueller was well within reason to look into it. Not smart of Trump to give him the opening).

3. Impeachment 1 was a *political* overreach.

4. Trump should have been convicted of impeachment 2. Not for inciting, but for sitting on his ass throwing food at the wall when he couldnt get the vote delayed more, all the while doing *nothing* as a Commander in Chief to address the ongoing riot.

As for the bolded -- I am not 'certain'. But there is plenty of evidence to indicate that crimes were committed. And, not my problem that Trump was stupid enough to jump into those actions pell mell. If Trump is found guilty -- it is a result of his own actions and own stupidity. If Trump presents additional evidence that shows he is a 'victim' -- then he is free to present it. And if sufficient I have zero problem changing my mind on my current position.

5. I have zero issue with the charges at MAL. If Trump presents evidence that refutes what is known about the issue, I am free to change my mind. It seems highly evident that Trump obstructed justice in a number of ways in that issue. I have no issue charging someone who intentionally lies and does not fully comply with a subpoena, among many other instances of that behavior.

6. I have zero issue with the charges by J6 for his role in allegedly trying to usurp several state elections, and have their slates declared for him by the VP by fiat. If Trump presents evidence that refutes what is known about the issue, I am more than happy to change my mind. Ditto for the Fulton Co. indictment.

7. I think Bragg both overcharged, and stretched the law quite a bit to get his charges in. And, in addition, Bragg may very well have a serious issue with SoL. All in all, dont think these should be on the table at all.

8. Jean Carroll cases -- dont know, dont care. I do know that Trump presented *zero* evidence to refute Carroll's case. In a civil setting some vs none gets a verdict against you. Those are the cards Trump himself played there.

So guilty until proven innocent. Spoken like a true totalitarian. You sure don't sound libertarian.