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 Spending Time And Energy On Senate Trial (1 Viewer)

Just to add personality I believe the Democrats should call the President and Republicans buff on this witness trading deal.

 
KPD said:
And call it bigly.  Call the President himself to testify.
Click to expand...
Sure. This next election is going to be decided by the 30% of voters who aren't on one side or the other of the line. I think it looks bad on the Democrats to flat out refuse trading witness,  unless the end game is to bait the Republicans with just enough rope to hang themselves. 

 
Sam Quentin said:
Sondland testified that nobody on the planet told him that Trump wanted a quid pro quo.  He presumed things and when you juxtapose this against the hard evidence - the text saying he wanted nothing and two phone calls directly to Zelensky, the direct evidence has much more weight than the presumption of one not so bright guy.
Click to expand...
Sondland is the same guy who sent the text.

 
Mr. Ham said:
If there is one thing I’d encourage anyone who doesn’t support Trump to do, it’s to reach out to people who the GOP would seek to disenfranchise and make a simple, three pronged appeal for their showing up to vote in November.

1. If they want to ever have agency in the future, this may be the moment it goes away if they don’t fight for it 

2. A decisive victory for Dems across the board is the only thing that can douse the effort to corrupt government and stack the deck permanently to the 1% 

3. The GOP has earned sound and decisive defeat, because it has acted immorally and corruptly, and if they are defeated in 2020, the trend lines of a more diverse, more urban population may have a chance of relegating them to the dustbin of history where they belong 
Click to expand...
I don't think there's anyway there is a sound and decisive Republican defeat unless the young votes turn out in way beyond record numbers. 

 
supermike80 said:
No no..thats exactly what you said,  I just repeated it back.  this is what you said..
Click to expand...
That doesn't say "it's just a bill to make voting easier"...I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.  I now  see the error of my ways.  If you want to read the next few posts containing my thoughts on the bill, I'm happy to discuss.  

 
The Commish said:
That doesn't say "it's just a bill to make voting easier"...I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.  I now  see the error of my ways.  If you want to read the next few posts containing my thoughts on the bill, I'm happy to discuss.  
Click to expand...
I saw your thought...I copied and pasted it..if that's not your thought anymore, fair enough

 
supermike80 said:
But wait.According to commish..this was just a bill to make voting easier. I mean who could be against THAT?  
Click to expand...
This isn't difficult......if you can find the above below, show it to me.  "this was just a bill to make voting easier" <> "it's the one where Democrats propose various ways to making voting easier for people".  It's a pretty dishonest take actually

The Commish said:
For those interested, this is the first bill they passed this session....read at your leisure.  I personally see little that would be struck down as unconstitutional much less every single aspect.  To each his own :shrug:  

ETA:  For those that don't want to read, it's the one where Democrats propose various ways to making voting easier for people.  You might remember McConnell flipping his lid because someone dared suggest making election day a holiday.  (Incidentally, that is also one of the aspects of this bill I don't see being in violation of the Constitution....but I am open to the arguments anyone attempts to make in that regard)
Click to expand...

 
The Commish said:
This isn't difficult......if you can find the above below, show it to me.  "this was just a bill to make voting easier" <> "it's the one where Democrats propose various ways to making voting easier for people".  It's a pretty dishonest take actually
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand...it seems you are repeating the same thing?   Your take is this bill is intended to make voting easier..is it not?  Can you explain better maybe?

 
The Commish said:
After rereading a good portion to refresh my memory a bit, I see very little that speaks to the HOW a state runs their elections.  One could make an argument that the voting rights for felons portion is in that category, but I personally see that as a WHO kind of issue and while I am a "the more people that vote, the better" person, I would be happy to watch that part play out in court.  I don't think that's necessary though.  If the Senate and House were functioning correctly, they should be able to hammer that out rather easily, but here we are.  

I don't see the Supreme Court ethics part as unConstitutional.  Though I find it pretty pathetic we'd even need to go there, but these are the times we are living in and I don't miss the irony that the SC would probably have to decide that.  I don't think making Washington DC a state would go against the Constitution either provided they go through the established protocol to add a new state.  Attempts to address gerrymandering isn't unConstitutional either best I can tell.  We see it today in the courts where bad actors have screwed up districts so much that they are being told to fix it by the courts.  Having a law on the books that prevents it in the first place doesn't seem like a major overreach, but I am open to arguments to the contrary.  The other interesting thing that would play out in court is the campaign financing rules.  But for the most part those proposed changes seem to be over limits and transparency, NOT if it's allowed or not.  That's certainly a pushback on CU and we know all the talking points there.  While I hate that the richest people and companies in this country control things, I'd compromise on legislation that removed it completely with legislation that forced it to be right out there in the wide open for all to see.  And for the last rather larger thing in the bill (IMO) I don't see how changing the structure of the FEC is unConstitutional, but again, open to arguments that it is.  I just don't see it right now.  Perhaps I am missing something.  

These other things seem to be in the same vein as "election day will be the first Tuesday in November":
1.  Election day a federal holiday.
2.  Internet Registration.
3.  Same Day Registration.
4.  Automatic Registration.
5.  Minor Registration
6.  ACA compliance
7.  Paper trails
There are a few others, but this gives the general direction the bill is going it seems.  These all seem in line with the current purview of Congress which has some pretty extensive reach to begin with.  It's not like we live in a country where the Federal Government is pretty hands off and this bill allows them to control everything.  That's pretty far off from the truth.

Most of the rest of the bill deals with funding to support these sorts of initiatives and deals with the consequences for not following through.

Anyway...my :2cents:  
Click to expand...
Then I followed it up with the above @supermike80

How about reading the bill and informing yourself so we can talk about it?  Or are you here just to take cheap shots at people?

 
Mile High said:
Me either but being a voter in a state that mails out ballots to every registered voter it's never been better to be an informed voter.  You can take your time going over the ballot and research the things you are not familiar with.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about big fella?

 
Mile High said:
Me either but being a voter in a state that mails out ballots to every registered voter it's never been better to be an informed voter.  You can take your time going over the ballot and research the things you are not familiar with.
Click to expand...
It's sitting on McConnell's desk...never brought up for debate.

 
supermike80 said:
Not sure I understand...it seems you are repeating the same thing?   Your take is this bill is intended to make voting easier..is it not?  Can you explain better maybe?
Click to expand...
Those aren't CLOSE to the same thing.  I tagged you on my take of what I've reread in the bill...read it or don't...up to you.

 
The Commish said:
Then I followed it up with the above @supermike80

How about reading the bill and informing yourself so we can talk about it?  Or are you here just to take cheap shots at people?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry.i read your post.  And replied to that post.  I guess I didn't realize you didn't mean what you posted.

This place is crazy sometimes.

When I post something, I usually post what I think...so when someone says "hey look what supermike posted" I can say, yeah I did post that.   Bizarre

but--I will be more cautious with your posts going forward.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
supermike80 said:
I'm sorry.i read your post.  And replied to that post.  I guess I didn't realize you didn't mean what you posted.

This place is crazy sometimes.

When I post something, I usually post what I think...so when someone says "hey look what supermike posted" I can say, yeah I did post that.   Bizarre
Click to expand...
I don't post things I don't mean.  I do clarify to help people understand what I am saying.  I usually don't bother when people are clearly taking my words out of context for whatever personal reasons they may have.  It's certainly a bill that helps with voting issues.  It's not "just" that and I didn't say it was "just" that.  You said I did and that is incorrect.  It's that plus many more things that I outlined.  I listed that specific piece to jog the memories of those who pay attention to these things.  It was a remarkable tantrum by McConnell that day.  People usually remember those sorts of dumb things.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does anyone know what this supermike guy is going on about? Or is there something about making voting easier that liberals take for granted and don't have a clue that non-libs would be opposed? Or is that a wrong conclusion, too?

I'm more than normally confused.

 
The Commish said:
I don't post things I don't mean.  I do clarify to help people understand what I am saying.  I usually don't bother when people are clearly taking my words out of context for whatever personal reasons they may have.  It's certainly a bill that helps with voting issues.  It's not "just" that and I didn't say it was "just" that.  You said I did and that is incorrect.  It's that plus many more things that I outlined.  I listed that specific piece to job the memories of those who pay attention to these things.  It was a remarkable tantrum by McConnell that day.  People usually remember those sorts of dumb things.  
Click to expand...
It's cool man.  All good.

 
roadkill1292 said:
Does anyone know what this supermike guy is going on about? Or is there something about making voting easier that liberals take for granted and don't have a clue that non-libs would be opposed? Or is that a wrong conclusion, too?

I'm more than normally confused.
Click to expand...
The bill apparently is NOT about making voting easier, I guess?     I'm confused too.  I said that and I got jumped on. So who knows at this point.

 
roadkill1292 said:
Does anyone know what this supermike guy is going on about? Or is there something about making voting easier that liberals take for granted and don't have a clue that non-libs would be opposed? Or is that a wrong conclusion, too?

I'm more than normally confused.
Click to expand...
All I know is getting your ballot in the mail is awesome.  I beleive voter turnout in Colorado is one of the highest percentages in the country.  That should be something every American is for.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
You don’t need to bother arguing against this. This only reason both the whistleblower and Hunter Biden are brought up as witnesses is to try to negate the inevitable reaction when they refuse Bolton, as they will. “Well, the Democrats wouldn’t let us have our witnesses either, so both sides...etc” 
Click to expand...
The Ds already got a bunch witnesses in the House, and now they want more without the Rs having a single witness.  It has been incredibly one-sided and that’s still not good enough for these guys.  This isn’t the Soviet Union yet, the tactics seem to resemble it.  Hearsay, double hearsay, secret witnesses no exculpatory witnesses allowed..... its breaking every rule of fair play established over centuries of jurisprudence.

 
Sam Quentin said:
The Ds already got a bunch witnesses in the House, and now they want more without the Rs having a single witness.  It has been incredibly one-sided and that’s still not good enough for these guys.  This isn’t the Soviet Union yet, the tactics seem to resemble it.  Hearsay, double hearsay, secret witnesses no exculpatory witnesses allowed..... its breaking every rule of fair play established over centuries of jurisprudence.
Click to expand...
The Rs had witnesses too...and would still be allowed to call relevant witnesses in the senate.  The whistleblower, Adam Schiff, and Hunter Biden are not relevant witnesses.

Secret witnesses?  Why make things up!

No rules were broken though...you get that, right?

 
urbanhack said:
It's what happens when you bring "information" in here from the right wing media bubble. For some reason...it keeps happening.
Click to expand...
It is pretty amazing a guy just a few weeks around election time settled a fraud case and then bragged they should have helt out for more and just recently settled another case about misuse of his charity is now a beacon of truth and honesty. 

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I assume you mean "W".   HW and Reagan should have been shown the door for Iran-Contra.  However for the sake of the nation we allowed the scope to be limited to a few topics where deniability was pretended to be plausible.
Click to expand...
I think you forgot this from December 25, 1992:

Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial; Prosecutor Assails 'Cover-Up'

If you can find a copy of the original front page article from the NYT, the pic of Cap Weinberger smiling as he heads out of the courthouse is unforgettable.

For some modern day flavor:

William Barr Supported Pardons In An Earlier D.C. 'Witch Hunt': Iran-Contra

Senators, Ask William Barr About His Pardon Strategy (opinion)

 
I really miss posting about politics. I'm still working as an annually contracted teacher, but a family court judge persuaded the school district that I should work with adolescents going through the foster care system. This summer I helped three 17 y/o get their HS equivalency ( in WV, TASC). One of them was 2 months pregnant and 1 month away from becoming 18 and being pushed out the door. When she passed he test, the shelter got an interview for her at a local plant and they hired her!

I'm still living with my Dad and taking care of him, but I have help coming every day from 10-2.

Sorry to side track....I just needed to spout off

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Axios: Democrats Fear MAGA Republican Kari Lake Could Be Arizona's Next Governor (10/21/22 01:52 PST)
Replies
18
Views
2K
Snotbubbles
Snotbubbles
Stealthycat
Arkansas SAFE act "The nation's first trial over a state's ban on gender-confirming care for children "
3 4 5
Replies
236
Views
13K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
(HULK)
Literal Fake News
Replies
21
Views
1K
rockaction
rockaction

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top