LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Moving on, again...

“You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo,” Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.) said Tuesday in a Fox News interview .

YA, are you a Congressman from Texas?

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:32 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:55 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:34 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:33 am The newest old standard was sentence first, trial second. Now it's sentence first, no trial at all. Salem witch trials are back in vogue.

Nope.

The "old standard" for both Clinton and Nixon was: the Attorney General appointed an independent prosecutor a FULL YEAR before impeachment proceedings started. And, of course, even longer for Ken Starr's game.

I'm guessing that neither you nor anyone else making this fake complaint about protocol will direct their ire, in their longing for "doing it the right way" to AG Barr, where it belongs. What you should be asking is: Why isn't Attorney General Barr launching an investigation?

And, of course, we all know why. Barr is compromised. Plain as day.

You just want to fling poo at Pelosi, and have zero interest in actual protocol.

Thsi kind of hysteria leads directly to Trump's re-election. Everything's a crisis, every critic has the same talking points; more importantly, every critic has a problem for every solution.....

Something is in the water this week, where when a poster gets proven wrong, they can't help but yell "look, a squirrel"...hoping I'm too stupid to notice that they just don't want to admit to being wrong.

YOU were the one complaining about standards not being followed, not me. And hysterical? Who just brought up the Salem freaking witch trials, and tried to apply it to Pelosi??

All I did is respond to your feigned concern for following protocol.....and told you what the exact protocol was for the last two impeachment trials. Actual facts. I guess I'm supposed to not do that, is that it?

Dude. You fell for Trump "logic" on how this impeachment is "supposed" to proceed. Congrats, you were outsmarted by Trump. Nice job.


So if you're really mad about protocol? Take it up with your Trump-appointed AG Barr. He is supposed to appoint a Special Prosecutor. He hasn't. You don't get to blame the Dems, sorry.

He also doesn't remember all the hysteria over Obama and Clinton (where everything was a crisis) on the right lead to Trump's election - the tactic does work.

It's tough to trust what PB presents about himself and his beliefs and I'm not sure what he's trying to accomplish in general.

Almost every time someone presents a counter-argument he moves onto something tangential. Basically he embodies the Red Herring fallacy. The question is to what end?

seacoaster wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:00 pm Moving on, again...

“You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo,” Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.) said Tuesday in a Fox News interview .

YA, are you a Congressman from Texas?

Expect a bunch of these house clowns in the WH if he wins.

Lindsey is on the Senate floor, encouraging “safe impeachment.”

Trinity wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:07 pm Lindsey is on the Senate floor, encouraging “safe impeachment.”

Condoms?

holmes435 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:03 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:32 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:55 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:34 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:33 am The newest old standard was sentence first, trial second. Now it's sentence first, no trial at all. Salem witch trials are back in vogue.

Nope.

The "old standard" for both Clinton and Nixon was: the Attorney General appointed an independent prosecutor a FULL YEAR before impeachment proceedings started. And, of course, even longer for Ken Starr's game.

I'm guessing that neither you nor anyone else making this fake complaint about protocol will direct their ire, in their longing for "doing it the right way" to AG Barr, where it belongs. What you should be asking is: Why isn't Attorney General Barr launching an investigation?

And, of course, we all know why. Barr is compromised. Plain as day.

You just want to fling poo at Pelosi, and have zero interest in actual protocol.

Thsi kind of hysteria leads directly to Trump's re-election. Everything's a crisis, every critic has the same talking points; more importantly, every critic has a problem for every solution.....

Something is in the water this week, where when a poster gets proven wrong, they can't help but yell "look, a squirrel"...hoping I'm too stupid to notice that they just don't want to admit to being wrong.

YOU were the one complaining about standards not being followed, not me. And hysterical? Who just brought up the Salem freaking witch trials, and tried to apply it to Pelosi??

All I did is respond to your feigned concern for following protocol.....and told you what the exact protocol was for the last two impeachment trials. Actual facts. I guess I'm supposed to not do that, is that it?

Dude. You fell for Trump "logic" on how this impeachment is "supposed" to proceed. Congrats, you were outsmarted by Trump. Nice job.


So if you're really mad about protocol? Take it up with your Trump-appointed AG Barr. He is supposed to appoint a Special Prosecutor. He hasn't. You don't get to blame the Dems, sorry.

He also doesn't remember all the hysteria over Obama and Clinton (where everything was a crisis) on the right lead to Trump's election - the tactic does work.

It's tough to trust what PB presents about himself and his beliefs and I'm not sure what he's trying to accomplish in general.

Almost every time someone presents a counter-argument he moves onto something tangential. Basically he embodies the Red Herring fallacy. The question is to what end?

anybody seen Fatty?

Republicans aren’t fighting hard enough. Rudy is on sabbatical, getting his head repainted.

We are just happy they appear to be fighting.

If you’re charging into battle with Gaetz and Steve King.....

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:10 pm They know they can't make a reasonable argument to explain away Trump's corruption. So they are now rolling out the old "we are going to have a civil war" if Trump is impeached shtick. So says 67% of their viewers. Even have folks sending in twitter messages threatening it.

Preview of November 2020?

What's expected to come of this "impeachment?"

Good. All the facts come out. Trump impeached then acquitted by straight part line vote. Voters get to vote Nov. 2020.

Better. Same as above. But the House and Senate votes against Trump include some GOP-ers (like Rooney, Hurd, Romney, Thune).

Best. GOP determines that Trump is an albatross and kick him to the curb. Pence, Kasich, Hailey, etc. have a GOP primary contest.

Pence is in on the caper. Now what?

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:32 pm Something is in the water this week, where when a poster gets proven wrong, they can't help but yell "look, a squirrel"...hoping I'm too stupid to notice that they just don't want to admit to being wrong.

I'm lurking a fan (busy, busy day) but "proven" is quite subjective, no?

"Proven"? "Admit to being wrong?" Why, because you struggle with posts that aren't literal? That's on you "dude"...

I'll be around to turn up the "gaslight" and you can bale more "straw"

ggait wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:42 pm

What's expected to come of this "impeachment?"

Good. All the facts come out. Trump impeached then acquitted by straight part line vote. Voters get to vote Nov. 2020.

Better. Same as above. But the House and Senate votes against Trump include some GOP-ers (like Rooney, Hurd, Romney, Thune).

Best. GOP determines that Trump is an albatross and kick him to the curb. Pence, Kasich, Hailey, etc. have a GOP primary contest.

Yep, perfect.

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:18 pm

CU77 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:10 am Hey OS, what do you think of the Rs barging into the House SCIF with their cell phones blazing???

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... s-blazing/

Here's what I think: Lock them up!

Farce. Political theatre. White noise.
Let's see how many documents with their cell ph shadows show up on MSNBC or in the WP & NYT.

Hey CU77 -- troll someone else. I'm tuning out on this drama.
Don't expect a reply from OS on this issue until Schiff/Pelosi/Shumer get 20 (R) Senators onboard,

So you don't care about security breaches committed by people with an R after their names?

Why am I not surprised?

CU77 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:11 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:18 pm

CU77 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:10 am Hey OS, what do you think of the Rs barging into the House SCIF with their cell phones blazing???

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... s-blazing/

Here's what I think: Lock them up!

Farce. Political theatre. White noise.
Let's see how many documents with their cell ph shadows show up on MSNBC or in the WP & NYT.

Hey CU77 -- troll someone else. I'm tuning out on this drama.
Don't expect a reply from OS on this issue until Schiff/Pelosi/Shumer get 20 (R) Senators onboard,

So you don't care about security breaches committed by people with an R after their names?

Why am I not surprised?

.. makes two of us.

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:50 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:32 pm Something is in the water this week, where when a poster gets proven wrong, they can't help but yell "look, a squirrel"...hoping I'm too stupid to notice that they just don't want to admit to being wrong.

I'm lurking a fan (busy, busy day) but "proven" is quite subjective, no?

"Proven"? "Admit to being wrong?" Why, because you struggle with posts that aren't literal? That's on you "dude"...

I'll be around to turn up the "gaslight" and you can bale more "straw"

This is the silly game you play.

If I try and read into your posts, and infer meaning other than literal, you jump all over me, and say "Oh, I never said that, you're building a strawman".

And now here you are, urging me to do just that. You're asking me to understand you thought by reading things into your posts that aren't there.

So here's your chance to get what want. Do you want me to take your posts literally, or do you want me to read into them and guess at your thoughts?

Your choice, I don't care which. Pick one, and be done with it.

Or, better yet, stop complaining because I can't read your mind.


And once you've made your choice, you don't get to shift between demanding I take your posts literally and not build strawmen, and demanding---as you just did----that I DON'T take you literally, and guess at what you are implying.

tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:50 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:32 pm Something is in the water this week, where when a poster gets proven wrong, they can't help but yell "look, a squirrel"...hoping I'm too stupid to notice that they just don't want to admit to being wrong.

I'm lurking a fan (busy, busy day) but "proven" is quite subjective, no?

Nope. You made no mention of the Republicans in that sentence I left out. Fact.

Same goes for PeteBrown here. He claimed impeachment protocol wasn't being followed.

I gave him exactly, precisely, factually, what the first step was for both Clinton and Nixon. The AG appointed an investigator.

No wiggle room. No interpretation. PeteB was factually wrong. And he, like you, came back with "look, a squirrel!" because both of
you can't just admit you were wrong, and move on. I do it all the time, and it doesn't hurt, not even a litttle.

I know we live in the TrumpEra, but you don't get to have your own special set of "magic facts".

"UKIE" GIULIANI...GROUND ZERO OF THE MINOR CRIMEAN PECADILLOE...NO HARM NO FOUL.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/john-lit ... ertainment

holmes435 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:03 pm He also doesn't remember all the hysteria over Obama and Clinton (where everything was a crisis) on the right lead to Trump's election - the tactic does work.

It's tough to trust what PB presents about himself and his beliefs and I'm not sure what he's trying to accomplish in general.

Almost every time someone presents a counter-argument he moves onto something tangential. Basically he embodies the Red Herring fallacy. The question is to what end?

3D chess, Sherlock. You know me.

Anyhoo, regards Obama (one of my favorite POTUS's ever) and Clinton (up there!), I actually do not recall near constant hysterical panic on the Internet about those fellas. The all-in media meltdown, with daily, easily-disproven, foaming-at-the-mouth hyperbole...I actually do not recall that. Did Republicans fight those two via laws in Congress? Sure. Did Republicans verbally accost Democrat Administration officials in restaurants and driveways, or did a Republican shoot up a baseball game full of Democrat staffers and congresspeople? I do not recall that but I could be wrong.

What you can say is: Trump has surrounded himself with more-than-the-usual charlatans and grifters, reflecting to some extent his own background, and further, Trump purposely agitates the opposition (here, the Left) in a way that no other POTUS has ever dared. And so we can say that trump is a very aggressive, divisive guy, with low morals and ethics. And yet, I still have not seen a crime while you have seen 30.

My only real belief is this (mostly I just laugh at this stuff, while you obviously treat it as serious as a heart attack, and I get that): the unrelenting online daily anti-trump hysteria leads to his re-election in 2020. And if the Dem nominee is not Biden, Trump wins. Right now, Democrats (and you) are behaving to the exact calculus needed for Trump to win. Looks like Warren, and looks like the hysteria is only ratcheting up!