(03-31-2022 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-31-2022 05:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 10:12 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 09:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 08:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  All I siad was "You seemingly are a proponent *for* looking at it.", which prompted you to say i was lumping you in the 'foaming at the mouth' group.

First, how is "you seemingly are a proponent *for* looking at it" lumping you in the 'foaming at the mouth'? You often rip on me for overstating the case with embellishing language, but yet here is this..... interesting.

Previously you note "I’m arguing that you and other posters are misrepresenting the issue at hand". How is my statements "misrepresenting the issue at hand"?

And yes, I am responding to what you type -- namely 'These text messages create a potential conflict of interest that should be clearly addressed prior to any case comes before the court related to the 2020 election or Jan 6 riots.'. That is the potential conflict of interest should 'clearly be addressed'. That is you do not believe that CT should be able to address that himself. But, however, some grand unnamed third party 'should .... address[]' that issue.

Or perhaps a trio of magical gnomes 'should .... address' that issue at that point?

Tanq, you’re taking major liberties here. You’re ascribing your own personal interpretation to what I write, as opposed to asking for clarification.

I don’t think CT can’t address the conflict of interest himself. I said they should be addressed - Thomas himself could be the person to clearly address them and explain why he is not recusing himself. My statement was simply that this issue should be addressed - nothing more, nothing less.

You pulled this “unnamed third party” line out your butt. If you had asked for clarification, I would have told you that I was thinking the address would come from Thomas himself, and making it clear to the public that he understood the potential conflict of interest based on these texts becoming public, and that he felt his decision was correct for X, Y, and Z.

As if anyone demanding his head would accept his explanation.

CT: “I’m not recusing myself because I’m not my wife, and she doesn’t tell me how to do my job.”
AOC: “Oh. Why didn’t you just say so a week ago? Forget that impeachment threat. We’re ok now.”

And they would be wrong, IMO. I think people who are calling for his impeachment are wrong right now.

Not much I can do about that, though. I can only speak for myself.

Of course, they are wrong.

Just like the ones calling for Trump's impeachment were wrong.

Just like the ones who thought Trump and Putin were partners in a conspiracy.

But sometimes people do wrong in the process of furthering their political ambitions.

And that is what I think this whole brouhaha and related angst is all about.

With Trump they at least had something to go on, with his trips to Moscow and the Steele dossier.

With Thomas they have nothing. Nothing at all. Just an insinuation that his wife keeps his testicles in her purse.