My problem is that my total opposition to every part of the democrat agenda makes me so heavily inclined to vote for the Trump agenda that I have a difficult time doing anything other than living with his personal words and deeds. Trump simply cannot throw enough temper tantrums to make me want to live in Venezuela.

What I'd like is somebody with Trump's policy agenda but not Trump's personality.

(03-30-2023 07:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My problem is that my total opposition to every part of the democrat agenda makes me so heavily inclined to vote for the Trump agenda that I have a difficult time doing anything other than living with his personal words and deeds. Trump simply cannot throw enough temper tantrums to make me want to live in Venezuela.

What I'd like is somebody with Trump's policy agenda but not Trump's personality.

I'd like somebody with Trump's policies (for the most part) but not Trump's proclivity to try to get himself declared President by fiat. Much more achievable requirements for me.

(03-30-2023 07:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  not Trump's proclivity to try to get himself declared President by fiat.

Isn't this under investigation? If so, should it be taken as proven fact?

(03-31-2023 12:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-30-2023 07:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  not Trump's proclivity to try to get himself declared President by fiat.

Isn't this under investigation? If so, should it be taken as proven fact?

Have you not read the evidence, the factual evidence, that has been discussed here?

Do you think the Eastman memo is a forgery?

(03-31-2023 12:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-30-2023 07:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  not Trump's proclivity to try to get himself declared President by fiat.

Isn't this under investigation? If so, should it be taken as proven fact?

The facts that I outlined are all presented in at least three judicial opinions, and backed by three different appellate court rulings. All with opportunity to oppose.

Not the conclusion of 'Trump violated in a criminal manner (various laws)', mind you -- but that the facts as presented by myself are the facts of the case.

Trump asked for plan to forestall the results of certification, and obtained a plan detailing just that. Fact.

The plan called for Mike Pence to exercise unilateral power in following, all by fiat:
a) rejecting slates of electors;
b) installing alternative slates of electors;
c) redefining what a 'majority of electors' means.

Fact.

The the expressed minimum result at at least a) and c) to declare Trump President, by fiat. Fact.

The fallback being, from the memo, to at the alternative throw the election to the Congress. Fact.

Or another fallback forcing an intervention by the court system. The previous most likely instigating a Constitutional crisis like no other that has ever been seen in the US. Opinion.

The author of the memo admitted that the steps were not legal. Fact.

In response to the planning associated with the memo, Trump personally tried to convince Pence, many times, and with many levels of pressure and urgency to move forward with the plan. Fact.

And indirectly through various comments to the public, including to a specific mass of people immediately preceding a certain 'riot', or 'non-riot', or maybe a 'riot wannabe'. Fact.

Seemingly this was countered by the threat of somewhere in neighborhood of well over half of the DOJ senior office holders to the removal of the current acting AG and installation of "Enviro stud Clark'. Fact.

Also, at the same time Trump administration members, aides, and Trump campaign officials actively solicited people in individual states to implement the submission of alternate elector slates. Fact.

All of these issues are readily sourced from across a wide number of sources. Including judicial findings at the trail and appellate level.

Dont know *exactly* if it was a crime -- but the same courts above have repeatedly pierced the Eastman/ Trump attorney client privilege under the crime/ fraud exception. Each opinion stating that there has been a prima facie case that Donald Trump did in fact break various laws, enough such to overcome the privilege there.

In addition, other courts in grand jury proceedings have also various combinations of attorney/ client and executive privilege. We have rulings saying and reports of (not the opinions themselves, as I believe they are under seal due to the court acting as an overseer in the grand jury setting) the people in this paragraph being brought to the grand jury and not being able to assert the above privileges -- again based on the crime/ fraud exception.

Some have yet to testify in light of the subpoenas, but their subpoenas stand valid because of the abov--- most notable Pat Cippoline (White House counsel), Mark Meadows (Trump chief of staff post election), and Mike Pence himself.

Im comfortable with the facts of what happened as noted above. In fact, when a legal defense has been presented, the facts above arent challenged. Only the question of testimony regarding them is. We will see if those facts are indeed the basis for one or more criminal charges.

(03-30-2023 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-30-2023 01:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 12:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And I think he turns away many people who might be otherwise inclined to vote for the agenda and then decide not to based upon his actions.

Couldn't agree more. His 'agenda' is vastly more popular than his attitude is.

I am immune to his 'attitude.' I couldnt care less if he is an *******, or says bad words.

I said *actions*. And meant actions.

Trump's actions, and actions alone, have gotten me to where I stand with the 'no way Trump, ever.' And, I dont think I am alone in the 'immune to attitude, but not immune to actions.'

His attitude towards the rule of law is part of his attitude. Jesus, it seems I can't even agree with you anymore without you finding fault.

(03-31-2023 08:08 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-30-2023 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-30-2023 01:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 12:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And I think he turns away many people who might be otherwise inclined to vote for the agenda and then decide not to based upon his actions.

Couldn't agree more. His 'agenda' is vastly more popular than his attitude is.

I am immune to his 'attitude.' I couldnt care less if he is an *******, or says bad words.

I said *actions*. And meant actions.

Trump's actions, and actions alone, have gotten me to where I stand with the 'no way Trump, ever.' And, I dont think I am alone in the 'immune to attitude, but not immune to actions.'

His attitude towards the rule of law is part of his attitude. Jesus, it seems I can't even agree with you anymore without you finding fault.

But his attitude turned into actions. It’s one thing to say “I don’t care about the Constitution.” It is another thing to develop a plan, implement it, and fail in the implementation.

(03-31-2023 08:08 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-30-2023 04:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-30-2023 01:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 12:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And I think he turns away many people who might be otherwise inclined to vote for the agenda and then decide not to based upon his actions.

Couldn't agree more. His 'agenda' is vastly more popular than his attitude is.

I am immune to his 'attitude.' I couldnt care less if he is an *******, or says bad words.

I said *actions*. And meant actions.

Trump's actions, and actions alone, have gotten me to where I stand with the 'no way Trump, ever.' And, I dont think I am alone in the 'immune to attitude, but not immune to actions.'

His attitude towards the rule of law is part of his attitude. Jesus, it seems I can't even agree with you anymore without you finding fault.

Ham. I am very specific about what I am 'not Trump' on. As are other people I know.

With all respect, blaming it on attitude for those (and myself) soft sells the issue.

In all honesty I don't give a flip about his general attitude. I dint give a flip on his attitude on the law. I give a flip about his actions.

And honestly to your point there are a multitude of people that *fo* give a flip about him saying mean words in terms of him holding office. But there are are another decent number who do not. Yet are anti DJT based on concrete actions. A fairly important difference.

Turning yo your new stance that it is his attitude toward the law and it is the same thing. It's not.

I don't fall into anti- ISIS, or anti- Oklahoma bomber, or anyi SBF because of their attitude towards law. I fall into those viewpoints because of their actions.

Very distinct from one another. Just pointing out that. And pointing out that lumping everything into the catch all really sells that short.

If you want to initiate the idea in comparing attitudes to agenda as a topic you are more than free to do so.

I specifically said 'actions' which you transformed to attitude, which is both not a valid equivalence, nor what I said specifically. And no more than your 'attitude toward the law' == action.

You could have acknowledged the difference between my explicit comment and your reformulation. Or further between my correction and my reformulated. I said actions, and I meant actions. Not attitudes and not your reformulated to 'attitudes towards the law.'

I deal every day with people that edge the boundaries of correct and not correct under the law. I don't judge them for their attitudes, no more than I judge racist people's attitudes towards race.

At the end of it I specifically said actions and meant specically to say actions. No matter how much you wish to reformulate what I said to something different.

I guess we have our choice now of which lying, cheating subverters of the Constitution we oppose, and which ones we support.

I guess seven+ years of the Democrats screaming "wolf" without producing a wolf have inured me to their frantic arm waving. Russia collusion, two impeachments, millions of lines of of lies and innuendo from the MSM? Now this cobbled together prosecution? Might as well listen to the cries of voter suppression and Jim Crow 2.0.

Anytime Adam Schiff is one of your paragons of honestly you are in trouble.

So I guess we can all pick which group of liars and cheats we want to support, and no, voting Libertarian does not dodge that choice. Might as well vote Green or The Rent Is Too Damn High, or your Uncle Bill. Or stay home and work on your jigsaw puzzle. All have the same effect.

It is always hard to know when the Dems are making stuff up and when they actually have a case. They do window dress it well.

I have to resort to comparing their actions/results in office.

Under Obama, my retirement funds supported me and were stable.
Under Trump, they supported me AND my crazy sister and grew.
Under Biden, they are shrinking so fast I am alarmed for my future - and hers.

In each case, certain policies can be pointed to as a reason for the results.

In other areas, such as foreign policy, similar comparisons can be made.

So which set of crooks and fools should I support? The one that wants to bankrupt me?


So far, I have not seen anything that makes me think this latest round of innuendo and charges is any different from the charges of treason that were made during Russia! Russia! Russia!. Maybe the Dems have cried Wolf! a little too often , and a lot too loosely for me to take this latest round seriously. Not to mention the outright cheating.

Even if we choose strictly on which party/candidate hewed more closely to the law the last seven years, it is a difficult choice. Even if Tanq (IF!) is completely correct about Trump, Biden and the Dems hardly have clean hands, and their brand of subverting the Constitution is hardly better, just quieter and more insidious.

Well, it will be an interesting couple of years. I stand ready to vote the person/party that best represents me. Maybe it will be Manchin vs. DeSantis.

(03-31-2023 07:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 12:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-30-2023 07:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  not Trump's proclivity to try to get himself declared President by fiat.

Isn't this under investigation? If so, should it be taken as proven fact?

The facts that I outlined are all presented in at least three judicial opinions, and backed by three different appellate court rulings. All with opportunity to oppose.

Not the conclusion of 'Trump violated in a criminal manner (various laws)', mind you -- but that the facts as presented by myself are the facts of the case.

Trump asked for plan to forestall the results of certification, and obtained a plan detailing just that. Fact.

The plan called for Mike Pence to exercise unilateral power in following, all by fiat:
a) rejecting slates of electors;
b) installing alternative slates of electors;
c) redefining what a 'majority of electors' means.

Fact.

The the expressed minimum result at at least a) and c) to declare Trump President, by fiat. Fact.

The fallback being, from the memo, to at the alternative throw the election to the Congress. Fact.

Or another fallback forcing an intervention by the court system. The previous most likely instigating a Constitutional crisis like no other that has ever been seen in the US. Opinion.

The author of the memo admitted that the steps were not legal. Fact.

In response to the planning associated with the memo, Trump personally tried to convince Pence, many times, and with many levels of pressure and urgency to move forward with the plan. Fact.

And indirectly through various comments to the public, including to a specific mass of people immediately preceding a certain 'riot', or 'non-riot', or maybe a 'riot wannabe'. Fact.

Seemingly this was countered by the threat of somewhere in neighborhood of well over half of the DOJ senior office holders to the removal of the current acting AG and installation of "Enviro stud Clark'. Fact.

Also, at the same time Trump administration members, aides, and Trump campaign officials actively solicited people in individual states to implement the submission of alternate elector slates. Fact.

All of these issues are readily sourced from across a wide number of sources. Including judicial findings at the trail and appellate level.

Dont know *exactly* if it was a crime -- but the same courts above have repeatedly pierced the Eastman/ Trump attorney client privilege under the crime/ fraud exception. Each opinion stating that there has been a prima facie case that Donald Trump did in fact break various laws, enough such to overcome the privilege there.

In addition, other courts in grand jury proceedings have also various combinations of attorney/ client and executive privilege. We have rulings saying and reports of (not the opinions themselves, as I believe they are under seal due to the court acting as an overseer in the grand jury setting) the people in this paragraph being brought to the grand jury and not being able to assert the above privileges -- again based on the crime/ fraud exception.

Some have yet to testify in light of the subpoenas, but their subpoenas stand valid because of the abov--- most notable Pat Cippoline (White House counsel), Mark Meadows (Trump chief of staff post election), and Mike Pence himself.

Im comfortable with the facts of what happened as noted above. In fact, when a legal defense has been presented, the facts above arent challenged. Only the question of testimony regarding them is. We will see if those facts are indeed the basis for one or more criminal charges.

Thanks.

(03-31-2023 09:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 08:08 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  His attitude towards the rule of law is part of his attitude. Jesus, it seems I can't even agree with you anymore without you finding fault.

But his attitude turned into actions. It’s one thing to say “I don’t care about the Constitution.” It is another thing to develop a plan, implement it, and fail in the implementation.

I don't understand the use of the term, 'but' here... as if something in what I said implied that it was ONLY his attitude.

(03-31-2023 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Ham. I am very specific about what I am 'not Trump' on. As are other people I know.

I agreed with all that you said... and then added my own comment. I did not attrubute that to you.

Quote:With all respect, blaming it on attitude for those (and myself) soft sells the issue.

with similar respect (and despite the potential connotation there, i really do mean it)

What about 'I couldn't agree more' with your comment about his actions 'soft sells' it? My comment was an add on. Even without the actions which you mentioned, his attitude would be detrimental to his agenda.

That's my opinion and while I would be surprised that either of you would disagree with it, I really don't see how you can argue with it. It's certainly not an asset and again, IMO, is part of what leads to his actions.

Quote:And honestly to your point there are a multitude of people that *fo* give a flip about him saying mean words in terms of him holding office. But there are are another decent number who do not. Yet are anti DJT based on concrete actions. A fairly important difference.

Turning yo your new stance that it is his attitude toward the law and it is the same thing. It's not.

I don't fall into anti- ISIS, or anti- Oklahoma bomber, or anyi SBF because of their attitude towards law. I fall into those viewpoints because of their actions.

Very distinct from one another. Just pointing out that. And pointing out that lumping everything into the catch all really sells that short.

If you want to initiate the idea in comparing attitudes to agenda as a topic you are more than free to do so.

I specifically said 'actions' which you transformed to attitude, which is both not a valid equivalence, nor what I said specifically. And no more than your 'attitude toward the law' == action.

You could have acknowledged the difference between my explicit comment and your reformulation. Or further between my correction and my reformulated. I said actions, and I meant actions. Not attitudes and not your reformulated to 'attitudes towards the law.'

I deal every day with people that edge the boundaries of correct and not correct under the law. I don't judge them for their attitudes, no more than I judge racist people's attitudes towards race.

At the end of it I specifically said actions and meant specically to say actions. No matter how much you wish to reformulate what I said to something different.

Wow... a whole lot of explanation about things I never said.

Maybe you think I put more effort and thought into my comments than I do.

I sincerely thought I very clealry agreed with you about his actions... and like those people you mention... I am also one who doesn't like his attitude.

Trump's attitude towards the law (which is only ONE of his attitudes I have an issue with by the way) seems to be one where he thinks he is above it, or can get away with it. The actions you speak of are mostly reflective of that. Another attitude of people who act similarly is that the law is wrong and thus their actions are justified. They know better than everyone else.

You both have chosen to interpret my comment... ignoring the context that it follows 'I couldn't agree more' with what you said... as somehow suddenly disagreeing with something I just said I couldn't agree more with. That just doesn't make sense to me. You then seem to be claiming that I'm trying to CHANGE what you said that I just said I couldn't agree more with. Again, that just makes no sense to me.

I said I couldn't agree more with you r comment as it stands. I meant it. I then added (**what is essentially) an ADDITIONAL complaint of mine. (Yes his actions OF COURSE.,.. but his whole attitude)....

I agree with you **LAd** that someone with attitudes but no actions is not as bad as someone with attitudes AND actions... but that isn't what we're talking about (**Trump) **That I agreed with Tanq about. IMO, Trumps actions stem from and are exacerbated by his attitudes. I didn't assign that to you(Tanq).

**s because I edited for clarity

(03-31-2023 09:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess we have our choice now of which lying, cheating subverters of the Constitution we oppose, and which ones we support.

I guess seven+ years of the Democrats screaming "wolf" without producing a wolf have inured me to their frantic arm waving. Russia collusion, two impeachments, millions of lines of of lies and innuendo from the MSM? Now this cobbled together prosecution? Might as well listen to the cries of voter suppression and Jim Crow 2.0.

Anytime Adam Schiff is one of your paragons of honestly you are in trouble.

So I guess we can all pick which group of liars and cheats we want to support, and no, voting Libertarian does not dodge that choice. Might as well vote Green or The Rent Is Too Damn High, or your Uncle Bill. Or stay home and work on your jigsaw puzzle. All have the same effect.

It is always hard to know when the Dems are making stuff up and when they actually have a case. They do window dress it well.

I have to resort to comparing their actions/results in office.

Under Obama, my retirement funds supported me and were stable.
Under Trump, they supported me AND my crazy sister and grew.
Under Biden, they are shrinking so fast I am alarmed for my future - and hers.

At the risk of you taking this personally and behaving like my reply to this is based on animosity...

Without asking you to reveal personal details I'm curious how your retirement funds were stable under Obama and grew under Trump. Did you not have any of your retirement in equities? Did the value of your land skyrocket under Trump while remaining stable under Obama? If so... what do you attribute this to?

(03-31-2023 09:59 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 09:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 08:08 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  His attitude towards the rule of law is part of his attitude. Jesus, it seems I can't even agree with you anymore without you finding fault.

But his attitude turned into actions. It’s one thing to say “I don’t care about the Constitution.” It is another thing to develop a plan, implement it, and fail in the implementation.

I don't understand the use of the term, 'but' here... as if something in what I said implied that it was ONLY his attitude.

(03-31-2023 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Ham. I am very specific about what I am 'not Trump' on. As are other people I know.

I agreed with all that you said... and then added my own comment. I did not attrubute that to you.

Quote:With all respect, blaming it on attitude for those (and myself) soft sells the issue.

with similar respect (and despite the potential connotation there, i really do mean it)

What about 'I couldn't agree more' with your comment about his actions 'soft sells' it? My comment was an add on. Even without the actions which you mentioned, his attitude would be detrimental to his agenda.

Maybe I should have seen that as such -- I saw it as trying to turn 'actions' into 'attitudes'. In the vein that many people accuse many anti-Trumpers as 'well, people go after for him for mean words', that is his 'attitude'.

Not the first time that soft-sell has been used, even on this forum. My apologies for the assumption. The statement conveyed that change to me, apparently an incorrect assumption on my part, and apparently lads.

Maybe it might have been clearer from your end that you were not changing 'actions' into 'attitudes' in a unilateral fashion.

I think I had just come off a discussion about how the issue was that Trump did not have impeccable morals -- and perhaps that influenced my interpretation of that verbiage change from 'actions' to 'attitudes'

I really do not base my issues on Trump on his attitudes. I lived with that for 4 years, and in 2020 voted for him despite his 'attitudes'. And if it were solely an 'attitude' issue, I might even consider voting for him this time around.

With respect to your comment on our interpretation of 'attitude' and how incorrect that was, please note that you changed the verbiage from 'actions' to 'attitudes'. In that sense *you* misinterpreted *my* comment on 'action' to 'attitude' and all the extra ramifications that 'attitude' has over 'action' at the outset. Not a very correct action unto itself, mind you.

(03-31-2023 07:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  [quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='18877764' dateline='1680238827']

Trump asked for plan to forestall the results of certification, and obtained a plan detailing just that. Fact.

The plan called for Mike Pence to exercise unilateral power in following, all by fiat:
a) rejecting slates of electors;
b) installing alternative slates of electors;
c) redefining what a 'majority of electors' means.

Tanq,
had Pence complied with Trump's requests, and a, b, and c were done, what should have been the proper response?

Armed intervention by General Milley? Filing of court cases? Patriots overrunning the Capitol and kicking out the alternativeslates?

Just wondering.

(03-31-2023 12:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 07:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  [quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='18877764' dateline='1680238827']

Trump asked for plan to forestall the results of certification, and obtained a plan detailing just that. Fact.

The plan called for Mike Pence to exercise unilateral power in following, all by fiat:
a) rejecting slates of electors;
b) installing alternative slates of electors;
c) redefining what a 'majority of electors' means.

Tanq,
had Pence complied with Trump's requests, and a, b, and c were done, what should have been the proper response?

Armed intervention by General Milley? Filing of court cases? Patriots overrunning the Capitol and kicking out the alternativeslates?

Just wondering.

D: Banana republic

(03-31-2023 12:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 07:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  [quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='18877764' dateline='1680238827']

Trump asked for plan to forestall the results of certification, and obtained a plan detailing just that. Fact.

The plan called for Mike Pence to exercise unilateral power in following, all by fiat:
a) rejecting slates of electors;
b) installing alternative slates of electors;
c) redefining what a 'majority of electors' means.

Tanq,
had Pence complied with Trump's requests, and a, b, and c were done, what should have been the proper response?

Armed intervention by General Milley? Filing of court cases? Patriots overrunning the Capitol and kicking out the alternativeslates?

Just wondering.

I dont have a good idea *what* the proper response would/ should be. Nor have I heard one.

That is the reason why I say it would have sparked off probably the biggest Constitutional crisis in the history of the document.

I dont think that statement in the previous sentence is really that incendiary of a statement.

(03-31-2023 12:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 12:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 07:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  [quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='18877764' dateline='1680238827']

Trump asked for plan to forestall the results of certification, and obtained a plan detailing just that. Fact.

The plan called for Mike Pence to exercise unilateral power in following, all by fiat:
a) rejecting slates of electors;
b) installing alternative slates of electors;
c) redefining what a 'majority of electors' means.

Tanq,
had Pence complied with Trump's requests, and a, b, and c were done, what should have been the proper response?

Armed intervention by General Milley? Filing of court cases? Patriots overrunning the Capitol and kicking out the alternativeslates?

Just wondering.

I dont have a good idea *what* the proper response would/ should be. Nor have I heard one.

That is the reason why I say it would have sparked off probably the biggest Constitutional crisis in the history of the document.

I dont think that statement in the previous sentence is really that incendiary of a statement.

Had patriotic Americans stormed the Capitol to protect the integrity of our election process from being usurped (in this case, by the Trump forces), would that have been legitimate?

If we depended on the outcome of court filings to determine the legitimacy of the election, that could take years - and who is in charge during that? Does the President change every time an appellate court reverses the previous one?

Or we could have had actual military gunfire by American troops on American citizens.

I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Pence for keeping any of those scenarios from happening. He kept them in the realm of alternative histories.

(03-31-2023 05:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Pence for keeping any of those scenarios from happening. He kept them in the realm of alternative histories.

I couldnt agree more with that. And I am not necessarily an avid fan of Pence's.

(03-31-2023 07:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 05:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Pence for keeping any of those scenarios from happening. He kept them in the realm of alternative histories.

I couldnt agree more with that. And I am not necessarily an avid fan of Pence's.

Nor am I

Shaman released early

I don’t know if this is standard. The only Federal prisoner I know of served 90% of his sentence, which I was told was standard.