Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Skoo

Are we already living in a dictatorship?

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, matuski said:

The argument you are making, the logic you are using however, is EXACTLY the same.  Verbatim.

No it isn't.  It's one thing to refuse to address a conspiracy theory with no official standing.  It's another thing to willfully disregard information in a Presidential Impeachment trial.  To even compare the two is silly.  

Edited by parrot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, parrot said:

No it isn't.  It's one thing to not refuse to address a conspiracy theory with no official standing.  It's another thing to willfully disregard information in a Presidential Impeachment trial.  To even compare the two is silly.  

:wall:

The harder you try the more you look like what you say you aren't.  :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, matuski said:

:wall:

The harder you try the more you look like what you say you aren't.  :lmao:

I'll take this as a punt.  Probably your best move at this point.  :thumbup:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Steve Tasker said:

I would agree with you that Trump's policies, in general, do not really fit with the definition of what we traditionally consider "right-wing", assuming we equate right-wing to conservatism.  He's not really all that conservative.  That said, more traditional "true conservative" types have either (1) faded to the fringes of the GOP (i.e. your "principled conservative" "Never-Trumpers") or (2) embraced Trump, reluctantly or otherwise.

I think it's fair to question what is meant by right-wing.  The more "traditional" conservatives do exist, but seem to have a significantly diminished voice in today's GOP.  If we use the term "right-wing" as shorthand for "leans GOP", then the right-wing is what has now become Trump's GOP.   Very Pro-Trump voters may claim to be conservative, surely, but the party of Trump is mostly far from conservative.  It's possible to cherry-pick Trump agenda items and point to conservative principles, but as an independent on the outside looking in....if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

Yeah, when I made that thread, I was jabbing at myself. Nobody likes to be a "right-wing" anything, at least if one is conscious to the world and its ways.

But I think your points are pretty much spot-on regarding both what happened to conservatives and what is happening to the GOP.  Trump's ascendancy was dreaded and feared by myself and others because there was always a large non-conservative wing of voters that identified with the more cultural aspects within the party than any sort of policy, other than the basics. Despite what exit polls told us, we knew Buchanan and others -- especially the Reform Party that Ross Perot and Donald Trump were a part of -- had served messages in 1992 that there was a nativist/foreign isolationist/cultural swath of the party that could and would lurch forward at times. Those voters that voted for Buchanan and Perot are Trump voters now, in my estimation, and I sort of knew it would be so. That they have taken over the GOP is undoubtedly so; what the true conservatives do in the alternative is the question, it seems. 

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

But we know they didnt.  That Is far different that a whistleblower complaint, deemed credible by an IG...and verified by multiple testifying under oath.  To call that a blatantly partisan attack...its just contrary to the facts of what started the inquiry and how it played out.

But...but...but...both sides used the same tactics of ignoring the attack!  So that makes them both the same!  Don't ya see?  If you complain about ignoring a conspiracy theory because it isn't worth shining a light on the crazy that's EXACTLY the same as you and all your lackeys ignoring congressional subpoenas!   This is why if you believe the Central Park Five are innocent you must believe OJ is innocent as well...because they ALL denied it.  Conversely, if you think OJ is guilty you MUST believe the Central Park Five are guilty because they ALL denied it.  It's called logical consistency!

 

*sarcasm alert for those not adept

**and ftr, I fully understand what Matsuki is arguing, which is why obstruction of congress should be enforced regardless of one's political affiliation.  Otherwise, you can insulate yourself from any oversight and THAT brings us back to the dictatorship question.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, matuski said:

Obama played the right with a subtle and nuanced game when the partisan attacks came.

Trump is playing the left with a juvenile and brash game when the partisan attacks come.

Same game, different strategies, same results.

Obama and Trump are both playing games...see, both sides.

Obama and Trump are both simply using language and the tools at their disposal to achieve goals important to them, and yet one side dares to blame Trump for EXACTLY the same thing Obama was doing!!!!!

Obama and Trump both have the same human physiology, both have to eat and drink and sleep to live, yet Obama is a darling of the left and Trump is villified...they're the same!  They both metabolize glucose and oxygen to live,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, jon_mx said:

In your opinion.  But the clamoring to impeach him cut down party lines, which is also exactly what our founders wanted to avoid.  I would have liked to seen both Clinton and Trump removed.  But neither party had the backbone to do it to their side.

Can you link to quotes where the founding fathers were speaking of political parties at all, yet alone in the context of impeachment?  While I don't want to get carried away and say something stupid like the founding fathers had no understanding of political parties, it wasn't until the debates of the 1790s that there were political parties beyond those that aligned geographically.  The constitution was written and ratified by then, by the time Washington warned of the dangers of such things in his farewell address.

Now on the other hand I have repeatedly linked this article on what founding fathers actually said, how it was interpreted in 1974, etc.  And this article was written prior to the events surrounding this impeachment process.

So sure when I say things like 

Quote

“High crimes and misdemeanors,” ...originally referred to “damage to the state in such forms as misapplication of funds, abuse of official power, neglect of duty, encroachment on Parliament’s prerogatives, corruption, and betrayal of trust,” allegations that “were not necessarily limited to common law or statutory derelictions or crimes.”

it is a matter of my opinion aligning with (in this case)  "The 1974 House Judiciary Committee".  The facts clearly align with the above.    And actions to undermine an election would be as about as textbook of an example as possible.    The details are off, but the point is addressed directly by George Mason.

Quote

“Shall any man be above justice?” Mason asked. “Shall that man be above it who can commit the most extensive injustice?” A presidential candidate might bribe the electors to gain the presidency, Mason suggested. “Shall the man who has practiced corruption, and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt?”

Again while the exact details are different, obstruction of congress is also explicitly discussed

Quote

And in an argument with Madison, Mason warned that a president could use the pardon power to stop an inquiry into possible crimes in his own administration. “He may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself,” Mason argued. “If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”

Impeachment, Madison responded, could impose the necessary check to a president’s abuse of the pardon power. “If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person,” Madison stated, “and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him.” 

The idea from Lisa Murkowski that "The voters will pronounce a verdict in nine months, and we must trust their judgment." was also explicitly rejected.  And I simply can't imagine that the founding fathers would have ever believed that impeachment would not be high divisive to support the idea that it is wrong to impeach when the country and Senators or split.  When the jurors are also corrupt.

So sure, just in my opinion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, matuski said:

Not until he had milked the right for all it was worth.  It was masterful.

Trump is certainly not masterful.. he is a sloppy mess, which makes his winning the game all the more shocking.

Obama was smart, but I seriously doubt it was a master stroke. The most obvious explanation was that he tried to ignore it but ultimately realized that releasing the birth certificate was the best way to undercut the conspiracy. 

As for Trump, the idea that the partisan nature of impeachment absolves him of any obligation to cooperate is one of those things that makes sense if all you care about is coming up with political talking points but, logically speaking, is nonsense. Again, Occam’s Razor suggests that Trump didn’t cooperate because he was guilty and didn’t want evidence of his guilt to come out

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rockaction said:

Considering I took out a thread when he got elected called "Ask Your Resident Right-Winger Why He Doesn't Support Donald Trump" and it got many responses, I'm not sure it's the right-wing at all trying to tell you this is normal or par for the course. Quite the contrary. We've been screaming about its abnormality since the primaries. Those that support Trump? They are either celebrating the fact that it's totally new or they hold their nose and remain silent about their support. I would say that a large amount of Trump support comes from those that would support the Reform Party, where there one at the federal level on state ballots anymore. 

I just don't see Trump and right-wing going together. Or have I been displaced quite summarily? 

Who gets to decide who is a true conservative? Perhaps it should be determined by those who self identify as conservative. Once it was Goldwater fans. Now it's Trump supporters. Maybe  conservatives that dislike Trump lack an ideological home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Insomniac said:

Who gets to decide who is a true conservative? Perhaps it should be determined by those who self identify as conservative. Once it was Goldwater fans. Now it's Trump supporters. Maybe  conservatives that dislike Trump lack an ideological home.

Once it was Russell Kirk, who voted or ran socialist in '44. So I guess it all depends on the mood and mode of the day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zftcg said:

Obama was smart, but I seriously doubt it was a master stroke. The most obvious explanation was that he tried to ignore it but ultimately realized that releasing the birth certificate was the best way to undercut the conspiracy. 

As for Trump, the idea that the partisan nature of impeachment absolves him of any obligation to cooperate is one of those things that makes sense if all you care about is coming up with political talking points but, logically speaking, is nonsense. Again, Occam’s Razor suggests that Trump didn’t cooperate because he was guilty and didn’t want evidence of his guilt to come out

The partisan nature does not absolve him of anything, but it certainly doesn't motivate him to cooperate, and I would argue Occam's Razor suggests that (as is his nature) he would react in a childish manner.

Occam's Razor = ### for tat.

Edited by matuski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, adonis said:

Obama and Trump are both playing games...see, both sides.

Obama and Trump are both simply using language and the tools at their disposal to achieve goals important to them, and yet one side dares to blame Trump for EXACTLY the same thing Obama was doing!!!!!

Obama and Trump both have the same human physiology, both have to eat and drink and sleep to live, yet Obama is a darling of the left and Trump is villified...they're the same!  They both metabolize glucose and oxygen to live,

 

You could literally go back to parrot's post, change out a word and it would be the primary argument used by birthers for Obama's birth certificate.

Verbatim the same argument.... probably an argument you mocked along with me when the other side used it.  :lol:

Edited by matuski
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, matuski said:

 

You could literally go back to parrot's post, change out a word and it would be the primary argument used by birthers for Obama's birth certificate.

Verbatim the same argument.... probably an argument you mocked along with me when the other side used it.  :lol:

You should literally do that then.

You continue to ignore that we're talking an impeachment, and the body charged by the Constitution with adjudicating it purposely avoided trying to obtain relevant information.  That's my argument.  An IMPEACHMENT.  Do you think that if Obama had been Impeached over his birth certificate he wouldn't have produced it post-haste and rubbed the GOP's noses in it?  Your supposed parallel here is absurd.

Edited by parrot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, parrot said:

You should literally do that then.

You continue to ignore that we're talking  about an impeachment citizenship , and the body charged by the Constitution with adjudicating it purposely avoided trying to obtain relevant information.  That's my argument.  

:lmao:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, parrot said:

You should literally do that then.

You continue to ignore that we're talking an impeachment, and the body charged by the Constitution with adjudicating it purposely avoided trying to obtain relevant information.  That's my argument.  An IMPEACHMENT.  Do you think that if Obama had been Impeached over his birth certificate he wouldn't have produced it post-haste and rubbed the GOP's noses in it?  Your supposed parallel here is absurd.

Lets talk impeachment parallels then. 

Lets talk about when democrats literally did the exact same thing. Twice. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, parrot said:

You should literally do that then.

You continue to ignore that we're talking an impeachment, and the body charged by the Constitution with adjudicating it purposely avoided trying to obtain relevant information.  That's my argument.  An IMPEACHMENT.  Do you think that if Obama had been Impeached over his birth certificate he wouldn't have produced it post-haste and rubbed the GOP's noses in it?  Your supposed parallel here is absurd.

:lmao:  An IMPEACHMENT!, But Russia!, OMG the Tweets!..........wait for it.............Dictatorship!

  • Laughing 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and let's not forget it all started with the Stock Market Crash! the day after the election, as soon as he takes office, China!, any day now!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, parrot said:

Nice punt.  :thumbup:

I can and have articulated your point.

You cannot do so for mine.

Punting is the best you can hope for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, tonydead said:

:lmao:  An IMPEACHMENT!, But Russia!, OMG the Tweets!..........wait for it.............Dictatorship!

Who would have guessed Dictatorship was the flavor of the week? I’m intrigued for our next adventure!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, parrot said:

You should literally do that then.

You continue to ignore that we're talking an impeachment, and the body charged by the Constitution with adjudicating it purposely avoided trying to obtain relevant information.  That's my argument.  An IMPEACHMENT.  Do you think that if Obama had been Impeached over his birth certificate he wouldn't have produced it post-haste and rubbed the GOP's noses in it?  Your supposed parallel here is absurd.

The body in charge believed they had all the relevant information to make the decision.

  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump 3h

 

Ralph Waldo Emerson seemed to foresee the lesson of the Senate Impeachment Trial of President Trump. ‘When you strike at the King, Emerson famously said, “you must kill him.’ Mr. Trump’s foes struck at him but did not take him down. A triumphant Mr.Trump emerges from the.....

 

.....biggest test of his presidency emboldened, ready to claim exoneration, and take his case of grievance, persecution and resentment to the campaign trail.” Peter Baker @nytimes The Greatest Witch Hunt In American History!

Looks like we are up to a monarchy. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

The body in charge believed they had all the relevant information to make the decision.

You honestly believe this?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Apple Jack said:

You honestly believe this?

100 percent.  People knew  what went down.  Obviously you knew and had more than enough to reach the conclusion.  Would more information change your mind?  Zero percent chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2020 at 11:40 PM, dickey moe said:

Telling that there's crickets from him regarding this.

People start to use terms like "dictator" a lot more often when their guy isn't in charge.

My dictator is better than your dictator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2020 at 12:58 PM, parrot said:

The Trumpers made a lot of noise about no one testifying about hearing of the quid-pro-quo directly from Trump.  So that lack of first-hand testimony was what many of them were hanging their "plausible deniability" hat on.  Bolton might have destroyed that position for them.  Of course they were always going to acquit, but it would have been nice to see them at least go through the motions of having an actual trial instead of engaging in a blatant cover-up.  

Mostly no quid pro quo because the money went to Ukraine before the deadline without receipt of any quo from Ukraine.  That should be the end of it, really.  No quid pro quo in fact.  We have transcripts of conversations with Zelensky in which no QPQ was offered. So no potential quid pro quo either.  I am not sure what Bolton would even add to that discussion.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

100 percent.  People knew  what went down.  Obviously you knew and had more than enough to reach the conclusion.  Would more information change your mind?  Zero percent chance.

Which is why it was so outrageous to acquit him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Dickies said:

Which is why it was so outrageous to acquit him

Yeah, I must be missing something here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dickies said:

Which is why it was so outrageous to acquit him

No.  It was perfectly fine and in accordance with what Alexander Hamilton outline in Federalist Paper #65.  

"The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community..."

The whe community was not outraged at all, mostly just the Trump-haters.  Trump did not harm the public trust in such as way as to outrage the whole community.  That is why he was not removed.  Maybe the standard for removal should be lower.  But Democrats set the bar high for Clinton, so here we are.  Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

No.  It was perfectly fine and in accordance with what Alexander Hamilton outline in Federalist Paper #65.  

"The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community..."

The whe community was not outraged at all, mostly just the Trump-haters.  Trump did not harm the public trust in such as way as to outrage the whole community.  That is why he was not removed.  Maybe the standard for removal should be lower.  But Democrats set the bar high for Clinton, so here we are.  Thanks. 

Would have been nice if Trump testified under oath. Lying about a ####### versus extorting a foreign ally to smear a political opponent 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jon_mx said:

No.  It was perfectly fine and in accordance with what Alexander Hamilton outline in Federalist Paper #65.  

"The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community..."

The whe community was not outraged at all, mostly just the Trump-haters.  Trump did not harm the public trust in such as way as to outrage the whole community.  That is why he was not removed.  Maybe the standard for removal should be lower.  But Democrats set the bar high for Clinton, so here we are.  Thanks. 

Cool!  You are quoting the guy that wanted the president and senate to be "for life".  The monarchist.

But it was not in accordance to what he lays as a defense for the trial part of impeachment to be best handled in the Senate.

"Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?"

Yeah that describes the GOP in the Senate.  Sure thing!

ETA:  We'll ignore that Hamilton offers no such "standard for removal".

Edited by Bottomfeeder Sports

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jon_mx said:

The whe community was not outraged at all, mostly just the Trump-haters.  Trump did not harm the public trust in such as way as to outrage the whole community.  That is why he was not removed.  Maybe the standard for removal should be lower.  But Democrats set the bar high for Clinton, so here we are.  Thanks. 

Half of the country thought he should be removed from office. Which is to say I agree with you that it was limited to “Trump haters”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Apple Jack said:

Yeah, I must be missing something here.

The whole sham investigation to begin with in the house.  So, yeah, a pretty big miss.

You guys so bad want to get him on anything, that you're reaching for everything.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

The whole sham investigation to begin with in the house.  So, yeah, a pretty big miss.

You guys so bad want to get him on anything, that you're reaching for everything.

Utterly nauseating nonsense.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, zftcg said:

Half of the country thought he should be removed from office. Which is to say I agree with you that it was limited to “Trump haters”

I said 'mostly'.  It means something different than 'limited'.  Why attack something that was not said?  Seems to be a very common tactic here.  

Edited by jon_mx
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

I said 'mostly'.  It means something different than 'limited'.  Why attack something that was not said?  Seems to be a very common tactic here.  

Lighten up, Francis, it was a joke. Have we really reached the point where we parse each other’s jokes and try to draw broad conclusions from them? If so, count me out. 

(And yes, I’m aware that your name is not actually Francis.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Apple Jack said:

Utterly nauseating nonsense.

I agree.  You've said some pretty insane stuff defending this whole sham in the first place.  ;)

The 2016 elections sent a lot of people on full tilt because they assumed it was Queen Hillary's turn.

Edited by BladeRunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zftcg said:

Lighten up, Francis, it was a joke. Have we really reached the point where we parse each other’s jokes and try to draw broad conclusions from them? If so, count me out. 

(And yes, I’m aware that your name is not actually Francis.)

Yes, we have.  I got pinched a couple weeks ago for making an obvious joke and got reported.  Apparently, it's not funny making jokes around here.  

Edited by BladeRunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

I agree.  You've said some pretty insane stuff defending this whole sham in the first place.  ;)

The 2016 elections sent a lot of people on full tilt because they assumed it was Queen Hillary's turn.

I don't think it was that at all. Not even close. She wasn't that beloved. The full tilt was because Trump was elected, not because Hillary missed her chance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I don't think it was that at all. Not even close. She wasn't that beloved. The full tilt was because Trump was elected, not because Hillary missed her chance. 

Amazing how many people don't get this. Or don't want to get this.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2020 at 11:03 AM, BladeRunner said:

I agree.  You've said some pretty insane stuff defending this whole sham in the first place.  ;)

The 2016 elections sent a lot of people on full tilt because they assumed it was Queen Hillary's turn.

I didnt vote for "The Queen" nor did I vote for "The Donald".  That said, im pretty close to full on tilt

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Rood is just the latest senior officials to leave the Defense Department in recent months. Others include:

Secretary of Defense chief of staff Eric Chewning

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs Randall Schriver

Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Kari Bingen

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Director Steven Walker

Navy Secretary Richard Spencer

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Middle East Mick Mulroy

Acting Assistant Defense Secretary for Special Operations and Low-intensity Conflict Mark Mitchell

Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Jimmy Stewart

 

Who's stepping in for these people? No one?

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what trump has shown us is that congress and the senate are absolutely impotent against the office president

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.