ppaw1999;1860915 wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-create-panel-remove-trump-office-quietly-picks-democratic-support-124521145.html

Sounds like more useless legislation. Why waste time on something that can't be passed without bipartisan participation? I wish both parties would get down to business and work on some real issues.

Perhaps vote for the third party option and you will start seeing things get done.

like_that;1860920 wrote:Perhaps vote for the third party option and you will start seeing things get done.

I don't think Gary Johnson was much of an option. I think you could make an argument that Donald Trump was a third party option.

ppaw1999;1860921 wrote:I don't think Gary Johnson was much of an option. I think you could make an argument that Donald Trump was a third party option.

I am not talking about presidentially (altho Gary was still 100% better than hillary and donald), I am talking about the men and women writing and passing bills in the senate and house. Start looking at third party options for those states and districts.

like_that;1860923 wrote:I am not talking about presidentially (altho Gary was still 100% better than hillary and donald), I am talking about the men and women writing and passing bills in the senate and house. Start looking at third party options for those states and districts.

Good advice. I would put Gary on par with Hillary and Donald. A major flake.

ppaw1999;1860915 wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-create-panel-remove-trump-office-quietly-picks-democratic-support-124521145.html

Sounds like more useless legislation. Why waste time on something that can't be passed without bipartisan participation? I wish both parties would get down to business and work on some real issues.

they cant........the dems have gone so far left that if they work with Pubs they are going to get lambasted by their party

fish82;1860903 wrote:That's simply false. I'll leave it at that.

You're suggesting that they did so blatantly and publicly object to his behavior?

Well, then I really wish you wouldn't "leave it at that." After all, that's an affirmative claim, and you know where the burden of proof lies.

fish82;1860903 wrote:Unreasonable? No. Unlikely? Yes.

Now, sure. But there was no reason to think it was that unlikely before. We're in uncharted territory, at least for our current era. We had no precedent for how he might act in political office. He'd never held political office before. If we look at the majority of presidents prior to him, whether their policy was reasonable or pure garbage, they generally carried themselves in a more professional, diplomatic way, at least in the public eye.

It would hardly have seemed unlikely that we would see the current president follow that trend at least SOME. However, circumstances being what they are now, I agree.

fish82;1860903 wrote:Of course I don't. There was just as much outrage from the GOP as there is from the democrat party today. Now that I think about it, there wasn't any rioting in the streets by the GOP, so today's democrats probably have the edge. Also, the democrats defended Clinton far more vigorously than the GOP is defending Trump, FWIW.

My point is kind of made here...the public puts a pretty low weight on in-office conduct in their evaluation of a POTUS' job performance. Clinton's approval was well north of 60% thought the entire scandal, including the Senate trial. This, while committing perjury and trying to rig the outcome of a court case.

"There was just as much outrage from the GOP as there is from the democrat [sic] party today."

So, then, we have to ask ourselves: Was the GOP's outrage at the time unwarranted? Or is the Democratic Party's outrage today warranted?

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

MY point was that this "low weight" put on in-office conduct today, particularly from Republicans, is pretty hypocritical if these are the same Republicans who were calling for impeachment because Willy got some dome. In-office conduct either matters or it doesn't. If it does, then there should be a general consensus in the Republican Party that his behavior has been unbecoming for the office of POTUS. If it doesn't, then the move for impeachment of Clinton was completely unwarranted.

fish82;1860903 wrote:There's no reason to think he might do several impactful things, while maintaining the same level of pettiness. It's not like he'd be the first POTUS to do it.

He's not? Who else has done something impactful out of pettiness?

fish82;1860903 wrote:There's been an "uptick" in hostility running both directions. That said, only one side has shown the vast majority propensity for blowing shit up and killing people.

So, terrorists? I never mentioned terrorists.

As for a propensity of blowing shit up and killing people:

fish82;1860903 wrote: I guess a foreign-born citizen could be concerned that their cousin now can't come visit for 90 days. That could be problematic. That still doesn't change the original point...that "terrified" is an incredibly dumb adjective to use.

You or I really don't have the adequate sitz im leben to even say that. If someone sees the travel ban as motivated by either a fear or distrust of people who look like them, sound like them, and were born in the same country as them, sure there's a reason to be afraid. Not in the immediate future, of course, but looking past the immediate future hardly invalidates fear.

fish82;1860903 wrote:Historical source material is a great resource.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant. I've done my fair share of reading on various presidents (actually did a paper on Jackson in high school). However, the reading about presidents past hardly seems to cover the level of detail we're privy to today, thanks in no small part to the Internet and social media. What do you know of those two that you would say makes them comparable to Trump?

gut;1860898 wrote:I know you don't disagree.

Not at all. Was just ribbing you for the post sounding like Belly.

gut;1860887 wrote:Idiots have take(n) over (the) country.

O-Trap;1860967 wrote:You're suggesting that they did so blatantly and publicly object to his behavior?

Well, then I really wish you wouldn't "leave it at that." After all, that's an affirmative claim, and you know where the burden of proof lies.

I'm going to...because I can, and I'm right. So there. :RpS_flapper:

O-Trap;1860967 wrote:Now, sure. But there was no reason to think it was that unlikely before. We're in uncharted territory, at least for our current era. We had no precedent for how he might act in political office. He'd never held political office before. If we look at the majority of presidents prior to him, whether their policy was reasonable or pure garbage, they generally carried themselves in a more professional, diplomatic way, at least in the public eye.

It would hardly have seemed unlikely that we would see the current president follow that trend at least SOME. However, circumstances being what they are now, I agree.

I saw nothing that indicated to me that he'd change his spots in any way whatsoever upon taking office. One could hope for and expect it I suppose based on precedent, but there was nothing there worth getting hopes up over.

O-Trap;1860967 wrote:"There was just as much outrage from the GOP as there is from the democrat [sic] party today."

So, then, we have to ask ourselves: Was the GOP's outrage at the time unwarranted? Or is the Democratic Party's outrage today warranted?

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I don't partake in, nor have use for "outrage," so you'd have to ask those on both sides who deal in it.

O-Trap;1860967 wrote:MY point was that this "low weight" put on in-office conduct today, particularly from Republicans, is pretty hypocritical if these are the same Republicans who were calling for impeachment because Willy got some dome.

He was impeached for committing perjury and trying to rig the outcome of a court case in which he was the defendant. The "he got impeached for getting his dick sucked" meme never gets old, tho.

O-Trap;1860967 wrote:In-office conduct either matters or it doesn't. If it does, then there should be a general consensus in the Republican Party that his behavior has been unbecoming for the office of POTUS. If it doesn't, then the move for impeachment of Clinton was completely unwarranted.

See above. I don't disagree with the point you're trying to make, but your argument falls apart, since the conduct in question is really apples/oranges.

Trump is being mean on Twitter.

Clinton committed perjury and tried to rig a court case.

O-Trap;1860967 wrote:He's not? Who else has done something impactful out of pettiness?

I took your statement to mean "in spite of," not "because of."

O-Trap;1860967 wrote:So, terrorists? I never mentioned terrorists.

As for a propensity of blowing shit up and killing people:


You or I really don't have the adequate sitz im leben to even say that. If someone sees the travel ban as motivated by either a fear or distrust of people who look like them, sound like them, and were born in the same country as them, sure there's a reason to be afraid. Not in the immediate future, of course, but looking past the immediate future hardly invalidates fear.

If that's how they choose to interpret the ban, than the blame for the resulting "fear" rests within.

O-Trap;1860967 wrote:Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant. I've done my fair share of reading on various presidents (actually did a paper on Jackson in high school). However, the reading about presidents past hardly seems to cover the level of detail we're privy to today, thanks in no small part to the Internet and social media. What do you know of those two that you would say makes them comparable to Trump?

They were both terrible, mean, vindictive and thin-skinned people who made a habit of publicly bullying/belittling their opponents. Again, the only difference is that Trump has a tool to broadcast his venom worldwide instantly.

fish82;1861015 wrote:I'm going to...because I can, and I'm right. So there. :RpS_flapper:

Well sure. You CAN. You just don't deserve to be taken seriously without satisfying the burden of proof.

fish82;1861015 wrote:I saw nothing that indicated to me that he'd change his spots in any way whatsoever upon taking office. One could hope for and expect it I suppose based on precedent, but there was nothing there worth getting hopes up over.

What would you have looked for, though? Again, there's really no precedent in our modern political era to which we can point for a parallel.

fish82;1861015 wrote:I don't partake in, nor have use for "outrage," so you'd have to ask those on both sides who deal in it.

Whether or not you partake in it doesn't prevent you from having a perspective on its merit. Was it merited then? If so, then it's merited now. Is it not merited now? If so, then it wasn't merited then.

fish82;1861015 wrote:He was impeached for committing perjury and trying to rig the outcome of a court case in which he was the defendant. The "he got impeached for getting his dick sucked" meme never gets old, tho.

Okay, I will rephrase. He was under oath in the first place because of a hearing that ended up rabbit-trailing over him getting knobbed under the justification that it was "inappropriate behavior." The Pubbies in Congress, and the Republican public was all over it (oh, Ken Starr, you inept shit ...).

fish82;1861015 wrote:See above. I don't disagree with the point you're trying to make, but your argument falls apart, since the conduct in question is really apples/oranges.

Trump is being mean on Twitter.

Clinton committed perjury and tried to rig a court case.

If it helps, then just compare the outrage here to the outrage then that led to a damn investigation, which was then brought into a hearing. If anything, I doubt this outrage is going to lead to a hearing, so by that comparison, the level of it then was more intense than it is now.

If in-office conduct doesn't matter, that's fine, but it's pretty blatant hypocrisy to justify the outrage then (whether or not you took part) that led to a hearing and not this, which will amount to a bunch of people complaining about how inappropriate and childish it is for the POTUS office.

fish82;1861015 wrote:I took your statement to mean "in spite of," not "because of."

Ah. Nope, I meant "because of." He doesn't seem to balk at using his presidential platform to mete out responses in personal, petty exchanges, and we apparently have no good reason to think his behavior is going to change now that he's in office. So it doesn't really seem like a longshot.

fish82;1861015 wrote:If that's how they choose to interpret the ban, than the blame for the resulting "fear" rests within.

Perhaps the same can then be said of those with the fear that leads to the ban of people based on where the genetic lottery had them born.

fish82;1861015 wrote:They were both terrible, mean, vindictive and thin-skinned people who made a habit of publicly bullying/belittling their opponents. Again, the only difference is that Trump has a tool to broadcast his venom worldwide instantly.

They sound like the sorts of people who would never warrant support from the party that has portrayed itself as the bastion of moral values.

O-Trap;1861020 wrote:Well sure. You CAN. You just don't deserve to be taken seriously without satisfying the burden of proof.

I'm not too hung up on being taken seriously here. My track record speaks for itself.

O-Trap;1861020 wrote:What would you have looked for, though? Again, there's really no precedent in our modern political era to which we can point for a parallel.

I can't answer that, since I fully expected him to act in the same manner that he did during the campaign. Hence, I never really gave it any thought.

O-Trap;1861020 wrote:Whether or not you partake in it doesn't prevent you from having a perspective on its merit.

I prefer not to comment on topics where I have no experience/point of reference.

O-Trap;1861020 wrote:Was it merited then? If so, then it's merited now. Is it not merited now? If so, then it wasn't merited then.

If we're strictly comparing mean tweets with diddling an intern on the job (and leaving the impeachable offenses out of the argument) then the answer is yes.

O-Trap;1861020 wrote:Okay, I will rephrase. He was under oath in the first place because of a hearing that ended up rabbit-trailing over him getting knobbed under the justification that it was "inappropriate behavior." The Pubbies in Congress, and the Republican public was all over it (oh, Ken Starr, you inept shit ...).

He was under oath because he was being sued in a civil court case.

O-Trap;1861020 wrote:If it helps, then just compare the outrage here to the outrage then that led to a damn investigation, which was then brought into a hearing. If anything, I doubt this outrage is going to lead to a hearing, so by that comparison, the level of it then was more intense than it is now.

The civil court case significantly pre-dated the office antics, so he was going to be under oath testifying anyway.

If the opposition party held congress today, It think we both know that there would be hearings.

O-Trap;1861020 wrote:If in-office conduct doesn't matter, that's fine, but it's pretty blatant hypocrisy to justify the outrage then (whether or not you took part) that led to a hearing and not this, which will amount to a bunch of people complaining about how inappropriate and childish it is for the POTUS office.

I'm not justifying anything. Either side will decide on their own whether or not to sport said level of outrage as they see fit.

O-Trap;1861020 wrote:Ah. Nope, I meant "because of." He doesn't seem to balk at using his presidential platform to mete out responses in personal, petty exchanges, and we apparently have no good reason to think his behavior is going to change now that he's in office. So it doesn't really seem like a longshot.

Then I'm not sure what you were getting at. I don't see what "impact" it would have either way. His supporters will still support him, and those that don't will continue being mad.

O-Trap;1861020 wrote:Perhaps the same can then be said of those with the fear that leads to the ban of people based on where the genetic lottery had them born.

LOL. I guess. :rolleyes:

O-Trap;1861020 wrote:They sound like the sorts of people who would never warrant support from the party that has portrayed itself as the bastion of moral values.

1998 called. They want their meme back. :laugh:

fish82;1861031 wrote:I'm not too hung up on being taken seriously here. My track record speaks for itself.

Nobody's arguing that. But if it's all the same to you, I'm not going to take that statement seriously if you're just going to throw it out there without any credible evidence.

fish82;1861031 wrote:I can't answer that, since I fully expected him to act in the same manner that he did during the campaign. Hence, I never really gave it any thought.

That's fine, but it's still a guess. Doesn't mean there wasn't reason to wait and see some actual evidence one way or the other before assuming it to be true.

fish82;1861031 wrote:I prefer not to comment on topics where I have no experience/point of reference.

In that case, I can't imagine you have much to say about any President of the United States at all, do you?

fish82;1861031 wrote:If we're strictly comparing mean tweets with diddling an intern on the job (and leaving the impeachable offenses out of the argument) then the answer is yes.

Yes, the outrage was/is warranted? That's at least ideologically consistent, and generally I would agree.

fish82;1861031 wrote:He was under oath because he was being sued in a civil court case.

But the line of questioning was not about the civil case, which was about a sexual harrassment suit from Arkansas, if I recall correctly.

fish82;1861031 wrote:The civil court case significantly pre-dated the office antics, so he was going to be under oath testifying anyway.

If the opposition party held congress today, It think we both know that there would be hearings.

Perhaps there would be. That's a fair point.

fish82;1861031 wrote:I'm not justifying anything. Either side will decide on their own whether or not to sport said level of outrage as they see fit.

I guess I didn't technically say you were, though chalking up to personal choice sure sounds like justifying either response as intellectually viable. I'm not, in our conversation here, advocating for one being right and one being wrong. I'm merely advocating for consistency.

fish82;1861031 wrote:Then I'm not sure what you were getting at. I don't see what "impact" it would have either way. His supporters will still support him, and those that don't will continue being mad.

I believe we were discussing the justification for fear or "terror."

fish82;1861031 wrote:LOL. I guess. :rolleyes:

That whole goose-gander thing.

fish82;1861031 wrote:1998 called. They want their meme back. :laugh:

You can chalk it up to that all you want, but the only person who would wouldn't know that there weren't plenty of cries against the immorality of infidelity in office and that the infidelity itself made him unfit for office would be a person who wasn't around for it.

O-Trap;1861048 wrote:Nobody's arguing that. But if it's all the same to you, I'm not going to take that statement seriously if you're just going to throw it out there without any credible evidence.

That's certainly your prerogative.

O-Trap;1861048 wrote:That's fine, but it's still a guess. Doesn't mean there wasn't reason to wait and see some actual evidence one way or the other before assuming it to be true.

A highly educated and informed guess...but if that's the term you want to use, I'm fine with it.

O-Trap;1861048 wrote:In that case, I can't imagine you have much to say about any President of the United States at all, do you?

:rolleyes:

O-Trap;1861048 wrote:Yes, the outrage was/is warranted? That's at least ideologically consistent, and generally I would agree.

Cool. Check that box off then lol.

O-Trap;1861048 wrote:But the line of questioning was not about the civil case, which was about a sexual harrassment suit from Arkansas, if I recall correctly.

One and the same.

O-Trap;1861048 wrote:I guess I didn't technically say you were, though chalking up to personal choice sure sounds like justifying either response as intellectually viable. I'm not, in our conversation here, advocating for one being right and one being wrong. I'm merely advocating for consistency.

O-Trap;1861048 wrote:I believe we were discussing the justification for fear or "terror."

That was a separate line item in the conversation.

O-Trap;1861048 wrote:That whole goose-gander thing.

With a little pinch of false equivalence thrown in for effect...but I suppose I can dig it.

O-Trap;1861048 wrote:You can chalk it up to that all you want, but the only person who would wouldn't know that there weren't plenty of cries against the immorality of infidelity in office and that the infidelity itself made him unfit for office would be a person who wasn't around for it.

Hence the choice of date. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

All I'm gonna say about this conversation is kudos to O-Trap for mentioning Ken Starr, the man who gave a grand total of zero fucks about Baylor being a rape factory. A true bastion of moral thinking, him!

Trump's tweet this morning...smfh
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/881503147168071680


And of course the idiotic media took this hook, line, and sinker and are saying this incites violence and is going to "get a journalist killed"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Heretic;1861096 wrote:All I'm gonna say about this conversation is kudos to O-Trap for mentioning Ken Starr, the man who gave a grand total of zero fucks about Baylor being a rape factory. A true bastion of moral thinking, him!

You really can't get into the Clinton legacy much without Starr coming up.

And yes, another fine example of what has become of that grand ol' party of family values.

A pretty reasonable take on the Trump/Mikajoe skirmish.

http://www.ocregister.com/2017/07/02/trumps-twitter-attack-cause-or-effect/

gut;1860887 wrote:Equally funny to watch Ptown continue to selectively defend Obama.

Idiots have take over country.

1:11 am on Friday night in the summer posting about OBAMA!

All you have to say is "obama" and boatshoes will appear. :RpS_lol:

BoatShoes;1861216 wrote:1:11 am on Friday night in the summer posting about OBAMA!

You caught me. I'm not 22 any more...but it was probably more like 10pm where I live. Then again, you've never been a sharp one.

Alright, just saw this vid:

[video=youtube;rUTRUZyaDkA][/video]

At this point, I realize that I have to take a step back and give myself a reality check. I've been very vocal about my dislike for Trump. I haven't really liked much about him at all, except for maybe one or two things that he's done. But mostly I just have a distaste for him in general.
However, after watching the above vid I have to admit myself that I was certainly falling into the category of the woman reporter in red (on the right). I was getting to the point of hating every little pissant thing that Trump did or said because of my bias. I need to stop and consider things in a broader scope, not just a little more, but a whole lot more. Because I realize the danger of being just absolutely ridiculous just like the reporter in that vid. I can still dislike him without the zealoutry that I was very much in danger of falling into.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hundreds-of-voters-un-register-after-trump-voter-fraud-panel-demands-info/ar-BBE0dZa?li=BBnb7Kz

I think this is way over the top. Sounds like Big Brother is watching. I have been hacked twice. Once by someone hacking the records of my personal physician's office and once by someone working at the IRS:mad: I am totally against passing around ones personal information.

ppaw1999;1861805 wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hundreds-of-voters-un-register-after-trump-voter-fraud-panel-demands-info/ar-BBE0dZa?li=BBnb7Kz

I think this is way over the top. Sounds like Big Brother is watching. I have been hacked twice. Once by someone hacking the records of my personal physician's office and once by someone working at the IRS:mad: I am totally against passing around ones personal information.

I'm not sure what to make of this - it's publicly available information, and not even sure why the WH would need to "request" it. Is there really a difference between Trump's campaign asking for it (which I believe is entirely legal, and campaigns use info all the time) and Trump's administration?

The more nefarious explanation for the withdrawls is people are illegal and trying to run for cover.

gut;1861811 wrote:I'm not sure what to make of this - it's publicly available information, and not even sure why the WH would need to "request" it. Is there really a difference between Trump's campaign asking for it (which I believe is entirely legal, and campaigns use info all the time) and Trump's administration?

The more nefarious explanation for the withdrawls is people are illegal and trying to run for cover.

There could be this http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/voter-fraud-commission-may-have-violated-law/ar-BBDOFN0

ppaw1999;1861813 wrote:There could be this http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/voter-fraud-commission-may-have-violated-law/ar-BBDOFN0

It's publicly available information, and I'm not sure anyone is saying the govt doesn't have the right to do this inquiry (procedural objections aside).

I don't really see what all the fuss is about, other than perhaps Trump could use this for campaign research.outreach...which would basically be using the govt to get the info much easier and [free] than having a campaign team jump through at least 50 different hoops.

CenterBHSFan;1861235 wrote:Alright, just saw this vid:

[video=youtube;rUTRUZyaDkA][/video]

At this point, I realize that I have to take a step back and give myself a reality check. I've been very vocal about my dislike for Trump. I haven't really liked much about him at all, except for maybe one or two things that he's done. But mostly I just have a distaste for him in general.
However, after watching the above vid I have to admit myself that I was certainly falling into the category of the woman reporter in red (on the right). I was getting to the point of hating every little pissant thing that Trump did or said because of my bias. I need to stop and consider things in a broader scope, not just a little more, but a whole lot more. Because I realize the danger of being just absolutely ridiculous just like the reporter in that vid. I can still dislike him without the zealoutry that I was very much in danger of falling into.

Thanks for bringing yourself back from the cliff's edge. You make a lot of sense, and you are right on point here. Most of CNN and their guests have literally gone off the deep end; they are suffering severe mental illness.