Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

TobiasFunke

Members
  • Content Count

    43,543
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    47

TobiasFunke last won the day on December 17 2019

TobiasFunke had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

29,544 Excellent

About TobiasFunke

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Washington Redskins

Recent Profile Visitors

18,595 profile views
  1. I would argue that (1) doing something that just kinda seems a little off but that the Constitution doesn't actully forbid isn't exactly like "acting the same way as Republicans", and (2) there are lots of other things that separate the parties (eg Trump on Dingell at last night's rally).
  2. The list of things in the Constitution that have been bastardized for political purposes during the Trump administration is pretty long. Senate advise and consent on appointments, refusal to comply with congressional oversight even under subpoena, rejection of other clear legislative directives (eg turning over tax returns, exercise of emergency power), abuse of the pardoning power, abdication of duty to hold hearings on Supreme Court nominees, voter suppression efforts, and soon a sham "trial" in defiance of both the Constitution's directives and the oath that Senators will take prior to the proceedings, to name just a few. I don't agree with this particular maneuver. But at the same time, we can't really ask one side to carefully abide by both the letter and the spirit of the rules while the other side openly flaunts their violations. Because the thing about that dynamic is that the proud, defiant cheaters will always win.
  3. I agree, we don't have to go down there with him. But those who choose to do so are kind, decent and generous people whose enthusiasm for a man who publicly insults women who have recently lost their husband and wonders aloud if he's looking up from the fires of hell is rational and valid. I'm sure they'll be along very soon to make an articulate and gracious case as to why this behavior is exactly what we should want from the President of the United States.
  4. See? This fine, upstanding gentleman apparently approves of insulting the recently widowed at a televised political rally and suggesting that their spouse is currently burning in hell. Who are we to say that our distaste for such a thing is any more valid than his enthusiastic endorsement of it?
  5. Whoa whoa whoa. Take it easy. Sure, some people might think that what the president said about Dingell last night was out of bounds, but some other people think it's good to have a president who trashes a grieving widow at a political rally and suggests that her dead husband is in hell. What's most important is that we remember that no side is necessarily "right" or "wrong" about this, and that we respect each other and have a civil discussion about it. The fine, upstanding, respectful American citizens who support a president who trashes a grieving widow at a political rally and suggests that her dead husband is in hell certainly deserve that much.
  6. Just for the sake of clarity- that's not at all how it works. Generally what happens is there's an investigation by law enforcement, and then if the investigation turns up sufficient evidence in the eyes of the prosecutor, they seek an indictment from a grand jury. If the grand jury returns an indictment there's a trial (unless the defendant reaches a plea agreement) where the prosecution and the defendant are both permitted to call witnesses, with the judge evaluating the relevance of witnesses and the conduct and a jury ultimately returning a verdict. In the case of a president the investigator is the House committee staff, the grand jury is the impeachment proceedings, and impeachment amounts to an indictment (it doesn't line up perfectly bc of committee votes and whatnot, but it's pretty close). That would make McConnell both the judge (along with Roberts, who will conduct the proceedings once they begin in accordance with McConnell's directions) and a member of the jury. So what we would have here is a judge/juror disregarding an indictment and refusing to have a real trial, and also promising to return a verdict of "not guilty." He made this decision because he's politically affiliated with, likes, and wants to protect the "defendant," by his own admission. If you're OK with that, so be it. Just ask yourself if you'd be OK with it in a regular judicial proceeding, or if the "defendant" was a Democrat.
  7. I ran into him at lunch yesterday. He has a security detail now. I asked him about it; he said "these are strange, strange times." That's where we're at: a congressman has to have Secret Service protection to get a sandwich. I've never seen or heard of such a thing outside of Speakers or members who are candidates for national office. Sean Hannity should be ashamed of himself.
  8. That is correct. They are basically complaining about a defendant not getting trial rights at the indictment stage, while at the same time the judge and some members of the jury have already announced that they will not hold an actual trial despite the Constitution's instruction to do so, and will instead coordinate with and rule in favor of the defendant. Furthermore, this process is somehow unfair to the defendant, apparently. So unfair that it's worse than what happened to Jesus. Tens of millions of Americans support the party making this argument and will vote for their candidates in 11 months.
  9. Also FWIW the extortion thing doesn't even really matter. Asking a foreign government to launch an investigation into a potential election opponent is immediately impeachable. It's literally an attempt to collude with a foreign government to win an election, the thing Republicans made a big deal about the Mueller report not finding. Conditioning military aid and a white house meeting on the successful completion of the collusion just makes the charge worse, like using an armed weapon in a robbery.
  10. It is a fact. If you ask someone for something, and their answer is not "yes" or "no" or "maybe" but "I'd like you to do us a favor, though," that means they will give you what you are asking for (or at least are more inclined to give it to you) if you do them the favor. Every human being on earth would interpret it that way. If you claim otherwise you aren't being honest. I don't know if you're not being honest with us, or you're not being honest with yourself. But either way you're not being honest.
  11. Earlier I made the point that Republicans under trump are beyond parody because they're actually trying to make the Sideshow Bob "do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?" argument with a straight face. We can add another one to the list: apparently "get off the cross" no longer works, because Republicans are claiming that the Dems are treating Trump worse than the Romans treated Jesus Christ.
  12. Basic logic would suggest that it doesn't matter if it's partisan. Because if it did, that would mean a president could literally do anything they want, as long as his own party stood in solidarity. Even if their ranks had previously been thinned due to their support for the president being impeached. And conversely, it would encourage members of congress to ignore any and all wrongdoing, because as long as they did so the wrongdoing would disappear to the lack of "bipartisan" condemnation. Acting like bipartisanship matters in the context of impeachment perverts incentives on all sides. It's just a horrible approach.
  13. It's all the same problem in the end: The people running the government no longer feel any obligation to cater to the will of the majority thanks to the Electoral College, the Senate and voter suppression, along with the protection afforded by the Fox News propaganda machine. They've got their 40-45%, and that's all they want or need to run the country, to reshape the judiciary, to do whatever they like. No outreach, bipartisanship or even acknowledgment of the 55-60% is necessary. I honestly wonder whether it might be better for the country in the long run if Trump wins in 2020. Because there's likely an economic downturn coming before 2024, and that's the only thing that can break the cycle I described above. If we have a recession during a Biden, Sanders or Warren presidency we could end up with a President Hannity or President Carlson a few years down the line.
  14. Correction - there's always talk of impeaching a Republican POTUS by Democrats. Because Republicans don't wait until the person is president before they start talking about impeachment: Some Republicans are discussing their plans for President Clinton — starting with impeachment
  15. Here is the first well-articulated argument against impeachment that I've read, from Francis Rooney (R-FL). I don't necessarily agree with him, but he deserves a lot of credit for making it. The problem with it, of course, is that this argument requires Republicans to admit that what the president did was out of bounds and that members of his administration should testify on this matter, and most can't/won't cross him like that.