What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Democrats Create a Coronavirus Committee w/Subpoena Power (1 Viewer)

Do you have examples of where Clinton, Bush, Obama had done the same kind of things that Trump is doing?  For instance, have any of those three ever said, outloud, that they had no intention of following the law?  If so,  what was the response by House oversite?
what do you mean "same kinds of things" ? Bill committed perjury, I don't remember Bush Sr doing much, GW guided us into a war with Iraq when Saudi was the home of the 911 terrorists, Obama has Benghazi, Solyndra, SS sex scandal, Hillary's emails, H1N1 .......  all of those things could be / were "outside" the law depending on who looked at them 

and I mean really, every President messes up - there is simply WAY too much going on to never mess up right? 

Trump is a bully, childish ....... but he's not sabotaging America just because he doesn't do what the left wants him to do. 

It's not that people don't want him to act when they push back...they are pushing back on HOW he's acting. 
no, not this at all

He's the PRESIDENT - in some situations what he says goes. Period. Democrats might not like it but tough - the people in this country elected Trump, get over Hillary losing and get behind this COUNTRY and quit hating and dividing is what I say but the left will never let that happen.

If the left would stop paying attention to the childish things Trump does and good gawd I wish HE WOULD STOP IT ...........  maybe it'd lessen? I dunno ... but he feeds it, and they love it and fuel it and that makes him do it more 

We'll see what Pelosi's committee does ... do you REALLY think she's not going to point fingers at Trump because she hates him ? I absolutely believe she will

 
agreed

Do you have examples of where Clinton, Bush, Obama had done the same kind of things that Trump is doing?  For instance, have any of those three ever said, outloud, that they had no intention of following the law?  If so,  what was the response by House oversite?

I don't know what this means...yes, Trump is part of "the government".  Why is that funny?  It's not that people don't want him to act when they push back...they are pushing back on HOW he's acting.  This can all be done above board and correctly, but Trump has said OUT LOUD he wasn't going to follow the rules and do things above board and correctly.  Sorry, I'm struggling to see the "funny" part in all that.  If I am being honest, this last set of comments feels like trying to create an issue where there isn't one for the sole purpose of continuing a narrative at any cost....even when that's not what's happening  :shrug:  
What kind of response are you expecting here?

 
what do you mean "same kinds of things" ? Bill committed perjury, I don't remember Bush Sr doing much, GW guided us into a war with Iraq when Saudi was the home of the 911 terrorists, Obama has Benghazi, Solyndra, SS sex scandal, Hillary's emails, H1N1 .......  all of those things could be / were "outside" the law depending on who looked at them 
I was specific in my comment.  You're conflating a whole bunch of different things in order to attempt an equivalency that isn't there....again.  There has never been a President in my lifetime who came out and audibly said "I'm not going to follow the law".  Trying to put that in the same class as "things that might be outside the law depending on who looked at them" isn't going to get it on the intellectual honesty front.

and I mean really, every President messes up - there is simply WAY too much going on to never mess up right? 
agreed...not the point

no, not this at all

He's the PRESIDENT - in some situations what he says goes. Period. Democrats might not like it but tough - the people in this country elected Trump, get over Hillary losing and get behind this COUNTRY and quit hating and dividing is what I say but the left will never let that happen.

If the left would stop paying attention to the childish things Trump does and good gawd I wish HE WOULD STOP IT ...........  maybe it'd lessen? I dunno ... but he feeds it, and they love it and fuel it and that makes him do it more 
I'm a rule of law guy, so I completely reject this notion when what he says is in direct violation of the law.  He doesn't get to do whatever he wants in a democratic republic.  He has to follow the law.  Holding that position and holding our politicians to that standard is exactly what "getting behind this COUNTRY" means in my view and this notion that I am attempting to divide this country because I expect him to follow the law like everyone else is bizarre and something I reject without prejudice.  In my view, this has nothing to do with Hillary.  I'd hold her to the same standard.  "Childish things that Trump does" is breaking the law...intentionally because he doesn't like to be told what to do.  Trump's  a bully and over his head.  He's not lessening anything.  It's all he has and all he knows.

 
I'm a rule of law guy, so I completely reject this notion when what he says is in direct violation of the law.  He doesn't get to do whatever he wants in a democratic republic.  He has to follow the law.  Holding that position and holding our politicians to that standard is exactly what "getting behind this COUNTRY" means in my view and this notion that I am attempting to divide this country because I expect him to follow the law like everyone else is bizarre and something I reject without prejudice.  In my view, this has nothing to do with Hillary.  I'd hold her to the same standard.  "Childish things that Trump does" is breaking the law...intentionally because he doesn't like to be told what to do.  Trump's  a bully and over his head.  He's not lessening anything.  It's all he has and all he knows.
ok which law did Trump break specifically please?

 
ok which law did Trump break specifically please?
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything posted thus far.  I haven't asserted that he has broken the law.  I have asserted that he has said he will break the law and not abide by the rules and saying that is plenty of justification for having a committee for oversight before anything is even done.  And I have pushed back on the assertion that this threat is the same thing as people doing things that, based on interpretation, could be, maybe, possibly breaking the law, depending on how one looks at it.

Are you now attempting to change the subject or are you not reading what I am saying and just throwing out random questions?  If it's the latter, there's no need to quote me...this question has nothing to so with what I have said on this so far.

 
actually no - lets be honest, ok ?

Obama's administration and the nation in general didn't shut anything down to stop H1N1. They let tens of millions get infected, hundreds of thousands hospitalized and 12,500 die .... why? because it was acceptable. Nobody cared. I don't know why .... honestly, I don't. That was a bad pandemic. 

Covid-19 has a higher kill rate. Its potential is killing 50,000. Or 20,000 or 100,000 ... nobody knows and of course, nobody knew what H1N1 would do either, right? What the REACTION to covid-19 has been ... is critically different. 

Why didn't Obama and the Govt then react like they are now (or being expected to react) ?    They didn't know the kill % .... they had no idea what the range would be then, just as we don't now with covid-19. 

my question comes back to .... why is Trump's administration being held to a standard that Obama's wasn't?  
Some interesting history concerning H1N1

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/07/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-united-states.html

A virus can kill, of course, but so can blowhards.

As we wrestle with the new coronavirus, let’s learn lessons from the 2009-10 H1N1 swine flu outbreak in the United States. At first, polls back then showed that both Democrats and Republicans were about equally concerned with the outbreak.

That makes sense: Why should our political party shape how we respond to a disease?

Yet because President Barack Obama was in the White House at the time, some conservatives started dismissing the swine flu as a hoax. Right-wing media figures were particularly contemptuous at Obama administration suggestions that people get a vaccination against it.

“Screw you,” Rush Limbaugh declared. “I am not going to take it, precisely because you’re now telling me I must. You have some idiot government official demanding, telling me I must take this vaccine. I’ll never take it.”

Over on Fox News, Glenn Beck was similarly conspiratorial. “You don’t know if it’s going to make things worse,” he warned, urging viewers to do “the exact opposite” of what the government recommended. [https://www.mediamatters.org/rush-limbaugh/beck-limbaugh-fomenting-fear-about-h1n1-vaccine]   

Donald Trump called into Fox News and dismissed concern about the swine flu, telling host Neil Cavuto that “it’s going to go away.” Trump also cautioned that “the vaccines can be very dangerous.”  

Far-right members of Congress like Phil Gingrey and Paul Broun, both Republicans from Georgia, scorned the flu as a case of “panic” and “hysteria” and denounced government plans for spending money on a vaccine for it.

There was also paranoia on the left, and Bill Maher said on his HBO show that “I would never get a swine flu vaccine, or any vaccine.” But the fearmongering toward vaccination was far greater on the right.

As a result, attitudes about the flu soon diverged based on ideology. Democrats were 50 percent more likely than Republicans to say in surveys that they would get the swine flu vaccine.  Matthew Baum of Harvard found that people in red states were indeed less likely to get vaccinated — and more likely to die of swine flu. In the end, that swine flu outbreak wasn’t as lethal as many had feared, but it still killed or contributed to the deaths of as many as 400,000 people worldwide. In the United States, it infected 60 million people, caused 274,000 hospitalizations and killed 12,469 people, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  

“As states become relatively more Republican, swine flu-related deaths rise,” Baum wrote in a 2011 article in The Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law.

The implication: While right-wing blowhards may infuriate Democrats, they sometimes pose the greatest danger to their own true believers. The bombast of people like Limbaugh and Trump in this case was lethal — but only if you believed them. Doubting them conferred some immunity.

One lesson of that 2009 outbreak is the paramount importance of relying on information from scientific experts, not from ideological soul mates. I’ve been speaking to epidemiologists and other health experts, and they emphasize that in a crisis like the present one, the government must protect its credibility and the public should rely on experts rather than partisans on either left or right.

Sadly, Trump exemplifies an ideological approach to the coronavirus (and Democrats must avoid the converse tendency to predict the worst just because Trump is in charge). From the beginning, when Trump suggested that warming weather would solve the epidemic, his aim has been to downplay the risks and talk up the stock market, whose strength is key to his argument for re-election.

“We’re going very substantially down, not up,” Trump said on Feb. 26 of the number of infections. This was completely incorrect, and he piled on more narcissism: “We have it so well under control. I mean, we really have done a very good job.”

In fact, the United States bungled the response to the coronavirus, in particular with delays in testing. We have little idea how far the virus has spread because so few people have been tested, and we still haven’t adequately ensured medical and pharmaceutical supply chains or access to testing and care for those without insurance. We squandered many weeks that should have been spent preparing.

It’s not fair to blame all the bungling and lack of preparation on Trump, but his “nothing to see here” tone certainly hasn’t helped, and he is once again joined by a chorus of hard-right enthusiasts like Limbaugh, who assured listeners that “the coronavirus is the common cold, folks.” That ideological approach to health care already cost lives once, and it probably will again.

 
ok so you're afraid of what potentially maybe might happen based on something that was hinted or said or reported by CNN etc ?

so you're saying he IS following the law?
I'm not afraid of anything and I have no idea what CNN is saying.  Unlike many here, I don't consume our MSM, at all (outside breaking events).  I'm saying that it's easy to justify an oversight committee in an instance where the President flatly states he isn't going to abide by the law.  Full stop...nothing more than that.  The rest of the "whataboutism" and false equivalence scenarios appear to have been introduced to muddy the waters and normalize his comments...comments I challenged you to find ANY other President saying EVER.  

There always remains the chance that he's blowing smoke and never breaks the law and complies.  That's not his MO thus far but there is a first time for everything.  At which point, his :hophead: is causing unnecessary spending to form committees to make sure he follows the laws he's flatly said he won't follow.

 
ok so you're afraid of what potentially maybe might happen based on something that was hinted or said or reported by CNN etc ?

so you're saying he IS following the law?
Umm...it wasn't because of the MSM...its his own words in the signing statement of the stimulus bill.  Again...a point that has been made to you multiple times yet has to be explained yet again.

 
Also...because Trump removed the IG who was to oversee the stimulus oversight...and appointed his own yes man...

Once again...there are many reasons a congressional oversight panel is needed in this.

 
Also...because Trump removed the IG who was to oversee the stimulus oversight...and appointed his own yes man...

Once again...there are many reasons a congressional oversight panel is needed in this.
I actually agree with an oversight committee more now that there is no internal oversight so my opinion has changed because the fact pattern has changed.

We'll see if Pelosi and company use the power to play politics, which has been their MO since day 1 of the Trump Presidency.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You do understand the Russia Probe had already started by the time Trump became President?

LINK
I honestly have no idea what this has to do with Pelosi.  But, ok.

Your comment was "Pelosi and company used their power" - since day 1 - I simply pointed out that Pelosi and company had no power on days 1 though 370.  But, don't let facts get in the way of a good moan.  Have at it.

 
I honestly have no idea what this has to do with Pelosi.  But, ok.

Your comment was "Pelosi and company used their power" - since day 1 - I simply pointed out that Pelosi and company had no power on days 1 though 370.  But, don't let facts get in the way of a good moan.  Have at it.
semantics

 
I actually agree with an oversight committee more now that there is no internal oversight so my opinion has changed because the fact pattern has changed.

We'll see if Pelosi and company use the power to play politics, which has been their MO since day 1 of the Trump Presidency.
Something tells me you've already decided :mellow:  

 
The Commish said:
I'm saying that it's easy to justify an oversight committee in an instance where the President flatly states he isn't going to abide by the law
ok where did he say that and how is this oversight committee going to address that because I thought it was watching the allocation of money only ?

 
ok where did he say that and how is this oversight committee going to address that because I thought it was watching the allocation of money only ?
He said it at the signing of the bill...on television.  To the second part of your question, that's exactly what it's watching because that's exactly the part the President said he wasn't going to abide by.  

 
So think about this.  Trump and his adult children agreed to dissolve the Trump Foundation after a lawsuit which alleged illegal conduct back in 2018. Trump and others are all banned from serving on any charitable board in New York and he is going to provide oversight of the CARES act?

 
So think about this.  Trump and his adult children agreed to dissolve the Trump Foundation after a lawsuit which alleged illegal conduct back in 2018. Trump and others are all banned from serving on any charitable board in New York and he is going to provide oversight of the CARES act?
Yeah, you can't make this stuff up.

 
So think about this.  Trump and his adult children agreed to dissolve the Trump Foundation after a lawsuit which alleged illegal conduct back in 2018. Trump and others are all banned from serving on any charitable board in New York and he is going to provide oversight of the CARES act?
But he's not an established politician, the lamestream media is just making it look bad so he can't continue to clean things up...

 
So I assume all who were against this committee are also against Trump suspending payments to the WHO to review their response to the Pandemic?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top