Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Initial claims to the records were rejected by Treasury on the grounds that they lacked a legitimate legislative purpose so Democrats went to the courts claiming they were in fact pursuing a legitimate legislative purpose, namely "examining whether foreigners are in a position to use business dealings with the president to exert hidden influence over American policymaking".

Do you believe that or is it pretext, are they really searching for a crime?

Is Congress' power of oversight a "pretext"?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Initial claims to the records were rejected by Treasury on the grounds that they lacked a legitimate legislative purpose so Democrats went to the courts claiming they were in fact pursuing a legitimate legislative purpose, namely "examining whether foreigners are in a position to use business dealings with the president to exert hidden influence over American policymaking".

Do you believe that or is it pretext, are they really searching for a crime?

I believe they are exercising their powers of oversight. Do you believe this administration should not be subject to Congressional oversight? I think it’s imperative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Sean said:

I believe they are exercising their powers of oversight. Do you believe this administration should not be subject to Congressional oversight? I think it’s imperative.

Yes, I believe congress has a legitimate oversight function. If their purpose is to oversee an administration why are they requesting documents that predate that administration?

Share this post


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

Initial claims to the records were rejected by Treasury on the grounds that they lacked a legitimate legislative purpose so Democrats went to the courts claiming they were in fact pursuing a legitimate legislative purpose, namely "examining whether foreigners are in a position to use business dealings with the president to exert hidden influence over American policymaking".

Do you believe that or is it pretext, are they really searching for a crime?

Uh, no. They said the “legislative purpose” argument from stressing was bogus. 

Nice foggie deflection try. Fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Uh, no. They said the “legislative purpose” argument from stressing was bogus. 

Nice foggie deflection try. Fail.

Bullshit...The judge ruled that a legitimate legislative purpose existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

Bullshit...The judge ruled that a legitimate legislative purpose existed.

yes, he told the Admin they were full of shit. Your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

yes, he told the Admin they were full of shit. Your point?

It was a simple question. Do you believe congress is seeking Trump's financial records to aid them in crafting legislation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..... On with the show! Let's get to the3rd act, where in Trump sues the Judge, and appeals to the SCOTUS.

Share this post


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

It was a simple question. Do you believe congress is seeking Trump's financial records to aid them in crafting legislation?

I don't believe the question is relevant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dog said:

It was a simple question. Do you believe congress is seeking Trump's financial records to aid them in crafting legislation?

They are crafting legislation that requires future presidential candidates' tax returns to be public.  

Is looking into the first president to not release his tax returns in 40 years relevant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you believe Congress is seeking Trump's financial records to assist them in declaring war?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Do you believe Congress is seeking Trump's financial records to assist them in declaring war?  

I believe congress is acting in bad faith. They are using the "legitimate legislative purpose" claim as a pretext to examine the president's financial records in an effort to find damaging information or a crime they can use against him politically. It is a perversion of the oversight function and bad precedent that can and will be used against future presidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

They are crafting legislation that requires future presidential candidates' tax returns to be public.  

Is looking into the first president to not release his tax returns in 40 years relevant?

How about the years prior to that 40?  That's about the time we started getting full time professional party politicians who know how to get their kids involved in their careers and take care of them after their long time as underpaid servants of the people.

 

Share this post


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

How about the years prior to that 40?  That's about the time we started getting full time professional party politicians who know how to get their kids involved in their careers and take care of them after their long time as underpaid servants of the people.

 

I was responding to dog's questioning of congress's legislative intent in seeking the trumpinal's tax returns.  Not sure what you are on about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

I believe congress is acting in bad faith. They are using the "legitimate legislative purpose" claim as a pretext to examine the president's financial records in an effort to find damaging information or a crime they can use against him politically. It is a perversion of the oversight function and bad precedent that can and will be used against future presidents.

Fortunately the judge is a bit more educated than you and if somehow SCOTUS takes this on, it will be to deliver a 9-0 loss to the admin.  Even bible thumping judges follow the rule of law.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dog said:

I believe congress is acting in bad faith. They are using the "legitimate legislative purpose" claim as a pretext to examine the president's financial records in an effort to find damaging information or a crime they can use against him politically. It is a perversion of the oversight function and bad precedent that can and will be used against future presidents.

What's perverted is to have so much evidence of wrong doing by a POTUS and think Congress should let it slide.   I guaranfuckingtee R's would be doing the same if a Democratic POTUS was being accused of the same.  Hell, you guys want to investigate anyone who accuses Lord Trump of anything!  Go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

How about the years prior to that 40? ...

Before Nixon and after Nixon. Nixon didn't turn them over voluntarily. They were leaked by the IRS. Nixon saying I'm not a crook was in response to his tax returns being made public. It turned out that Nixon was a crook (tax write-off for donating his papers, ...). Consequently, presidential candidates have released their tax returns ever since. Well, until your boy Shitstain (who promised to release his tax returns).

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Does anyone here believe that the Democrat's interest in Trump's tax returns and financial records is to aid them in crafting legislation?

If the legislation being crafted involves laws mandating every presidential candidate to make public their last 10 years of tax returns, then I'm all for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

How about the years prior to that 40?  That's about the time we started getting full time professional party politicians who know how to get their kids involved in their careers and take care of them after their long time as underpaid servants of the people.

The mix of ignorance, nihilism, and ahistoricism is always baffling with the right wing these days. Do you truly know nothing of 19th century politics? Or 20th century politics? Or do you just not care and need to create narrative to justify how you are special? Here's but a couple of the long, corrupt, history of "lifetime" politicians and political graft in the US. The later 20th century is actually refreshingly free of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Tweed

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Dog said:

I believe congress is acting in bad faith

As you perpetually operate in bad faith you have to assume everyone else does, don't you? Unfortunately for the tax returns the law says it doesn't fucking matter Dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's Rose Garden speech..."If you don't stop investigating me, I'm taking my ball and bat and going home!!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Dog said:

I believe congress is acting in bad faith. They are using the "legitimate legislative purpose" claim as a pretext to examine the president's financial records in an effort to find damaging information or a crime they can use against him politically. It is a perversion of the oversight function and bad precedent that can and will be used against future presidents.

You keep saying that Congress is claiming "Legitimate Legislative Purpose."  They are not. That's the Admin saying they don't have it. Here's what Congress is saying. So your question is really a "is the Admin right?"  I'd say no:

 

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) is relying on a 1924 law allowing the heads of Congress’s tax committees to examine anyone’s tax information. In a letter to Neal released Wednesday evening, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the agency needs more time to consider the issue, though he also made it clear the department does not look favorably on the request.

"The Committee's request raises serious issues concerning the constitutional scope of Congressional investigative authority, the legitimacy of the asserted legislative purpose, and the constitutional rights of American citizens," Mnuchin wrote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping that by investigating Trump's financial deals and taxes Congress will find he lied about a blowjob he got in the oval office. Because that's the kind of serious shit that will get you impeached.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone forgot to keep Tillerson quiet.  

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/444928-tillerson-meets-with-house-foreign-affairs-committee

Quote

A committee aide told The Daily Beast that the former official said the Trump administration actively sought to avoid confronting Russia over the intelligence community’s conclusion that Moscow meddled in the 2016 election. Tillerson also reportedly said Jared Kushner, President Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, hindered his ability to discuss with the president State Department policy on major foreign affairs issues.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

You keep saying that Congress is claiming "Legitimate Legislative Purpose."  They are not. That's the Admin saying they don't have it. Here's what Congress is saying. So your question is really a "is the Admin right?"  I'd say no:

 

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) is relying on a 1924 law allowing the heads of Congress’s tax committees to examine anyone’s tax information. In a letter to Neal released Wednesday evening, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the agency needs more time to consider the issue, though he also made it clear the department does not look favorably on the request.

"The Committee's request raises serious issues concerning the constitutional scope of Congressional investigative authority, the legitimacy of the asserted legislative purpose, and the constitutional rights of American citizens," Mnuchin wrote.

What law do they cite that permits them to go beyond tax returns and demand any financial records.

Share this post


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

What law do they cite that permits them to go beyond tax returns and demand any financial records.

Congress has oversight authority which derives from the implied powers in the Big C. You should already know this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dog said:

What law do they cite that permits them to go beyond tax returns and demand any financial records.

umm, the US Constitution is a good starting point

I bet you haven't read that either. Why bother, FOX and their elk tell you what you need to know about it.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olsonist said:

Congress has oversight authority which derives from the implied powers in the Big C. You should already know this.

Does that oversight responsibility entitle congress to a president's private information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

umm, the US Constitution is a good starting point

I bet you haven't read that either. Why bother, FOX and their elk tell you what you need to know about it.

-DSK

Do you have a point you would like to add?

Share this post


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

It was a simple question. Do you believe congress is seeking Trump's financial records to aid them in crafting legislation?

Yes, they want to see how badly the tax law was written and want to offer new legislation so that even if your llc's and trusts lose money, you pay taxes on the money you made that supports your extravagant lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dog said:

Does that oversight responsibility entitle congress to a president's private information?

To the extent that it isn't covered by Executive Privilege, yes. EP protects communications and records with respect to an executives job. Your boy Shitstain's financial records are not connected to his job so they aren't privileged. Again, this shouldn't be surprising.

BTW, the Kenyan placed his and his wife's assets in a blind trust and released his tax returns. This was very devious of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dog said:

Does that oversight responsibility entitle congress to a president's private information?

Yes

It would be very poor oversight to not be able to look at "private" stuff; after all the President is the highest public servant in the country. What is he hiding from the public he is supposed to be serving?

"Each one that doeth evil hateth the light"

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

To the extent that it isn't covered by Executive Privilege, yes. EP protects communications and records with respect to an executives job. Your boy Shitstain's financial records are not connected to his job so they aren't privileged. Again, this shouldn't be surprising.

Medical records?  Academic records?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dog said:

Does that oversight responsibility entitle congress to a president's private information?

Did you pay attention to the law that gives Congress the right to anyone’s return?

I guess not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Medical records?  Academic records?

You could imagine that liberal Democrats are as interested in your boy Shitstain's academic records as patriotic Republicans were in the Kenyans' but you would be imagining. As for your boy's medical records, Shitstain released his medical exam and you can rest assured that he remains in very good health overall.

But in principle, yes, medical records and academic records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Did you pay attention to the law that gives Congress the right to anyone’s return?

I guess not.

Yes I did. Now you cite the law that gives them the right to all financial records.

Share this post


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

You could imagine that liberal Democrats are as interested in your boy Shitstain's academic records as patriotic Republicans were in the Kenyans' but you would be imagining. As for your boy's medical records, Shitstain released his medical exam and you can rest assured that he remains in very good health overall.

But in principle, yes, medical records and academic records.

WOW!  Is there anything they can't demand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dog said:

WOW!  Is there anything they can't demand?

Yeah, Executive Privilege protects communications and records with respect to an executive's job. But liberal Democrats in the House can in fact demand your boy Shitstain's long form birth certificate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dog said:

WOW!  Is there anything they can't demand?

Not sure.  What does the judiciary say about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn’t mind seeing pictures from AOC’s breast examinations.  Hopefully done by a hot female “doctor”.  For legitimate purposes only of course...

Share this post


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

Yes I did. Now you cite the law that gives them the right to all financial records.

They asked for Tax Records. Nice attempted dodge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

They asked for Tax Records. Nice attempted dodge.

They also want financials. Bank records, acountants records...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dog said:

They also want financials. Bank records, acountants records...

Yep. It is a political prostate exam. Of course, the Kenyan placed his assets in a blind trust and released his tax returns. That preempted a political prostate exam. It was very devious of the Kenyan.

But don't you worry about a thing. When your boy Shitstain is forced to release these records, you can simply not read them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

They also want financials. Bank records, acountants records...

But that has nothing to do with the request to treasury, does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

They also want financials. Bank records, acountants records...

why are you so scared Dog? afraid you've been not-supporting a fraud for two years?

Share this post


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

Yep. It is a political prostate exam. Of course, the Kenyan placed his assets in a blind trust and released his tax returns.

But don't you worry about a thing. When your boy Shitstain is forced to release these records, you can simply not read them.

I agree that it's political.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

I agree that it's political.

You're saying that it isn't a prostate exam? I was being metaphorical. In any case, elections have consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dog said:
19 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

They asked for Tax Records. Nice attempted dodge.

They also want financials. Bank records, acountants records...

Aww, ain't that a shame.

Isn't it kind of like the Homeland Security Act authorizing search and seizure without a warrant? If you have nothing to hide, you got nothing to worry about.

Every OTHER president had no problem publishing his financial info, even V.P. Cheney

What the hell is so-o special about Trump, other than that he's embarrassed about how rich he ain't? I know, he's hiding the lack of collusion!!

-DSK

Share this post


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

You're saying that it isn't a prostate exam? I was being metaphorical.

I agree with you that it is political. It's also a preversion, they're using their oversight responsibilities as cover to hunt for dirt.

Share this post


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

I agree with you that it is political. It's also a preversion, they're using their oversight responsibilities as cover to hunt for dirt.

Elections have consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

I agree with you that it is political. It's also a preversion, they're using their oversight responsibilities as cover to hunt for dirt.

Have they started asking in depth questions about sexual contact? Digging out dresses?

Of course once Brett had his loans mysteriously paid off by someone, he stopped caring. You did about the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Aww, ain't that a shame.

Isn't it kind of like the Homeland Security Act authorizing search and seizure without a warrant? If you have nothing to hide, you got nothing to worry about.

Every OTHER president had no problem publishing his financial info, even V.P. Cheney

What the hell is so-o special about Trump, other than that he's embarrassed about how rich he ain't? I know, he's hiding the lack of collusion!!

-DSK

How naive is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a Mueller report drops in the forest and all of the dogs refuse to read it, does it make a sound?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Have they started asking in depth questions about sexual contact? Digging out dresses?

Of course once Brett had his loans mysteriously paid off by someone, he stopped caring. You did about the same time.

Yes, some time back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, J28 said:

I wouldn’t mind seeing pictures from AOC’s breast examinations.  Hopefully done by a hot female “doctor”.  For legitimate purposes only of course...

If your fat ass was only a congressman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is greater than a 1% chance that a leader has any kind of financial obligation or debit to a foreign country, that has been hidden or lied about,  then I'm all for verifying financial statements and records.

Who thinks Trump has zero business/debit/obligation/favor to a foreign country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The prostate exam is something that's going to happen to every contentious candidate for office, and going forward every race for a major office will be contentious.

The vote has been subordinated to legal wrangling. 

Share this post


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

How naive is that?

huh?  How much has Trump spent so far fighting investigations and subpoenas?  Why, if there was nothing to hide?

 

 

Screen Shot 2019-05-22 at 1.55.26 PM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The prostate exam is something that's going to happen to every contentious candidate for office, and going forward every race for a major office will be contentious.

The vote has been subordinated to legal wrangling. 

you need to read some history if you think any of this is new. Only one thing is new, which is social media.  We've seen the criminality with Nixon, the inability to form sentences with Bush, the senility with Reagan.  Trump combines the best of each of them.  There have been worse periods in US politics and we're still all here in a place that's still better than most.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The prostate exam is something that's going to happen to every contentious candidate for office, and going forward every race for a major office will be contentious.

The vote has been subordinated to legal wrangling. 

Like it hasn't been in the past?

I thought you actually knew something about American history. The problem we have right now is that one party is acting like there will never be another election, and they don't expect to face any music

 

2 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

you need to read some history if you think any of this is new. Only one thing is new, which is social media.  We've seen the criminality with Nixon, the inability to form sentences with Bush, the senility with Reagan.  Trump combines the best of each of them.  There have been worse periods in US politics and we're still all here in a place that's still better than most.

And going downhill fast

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dog said:

I agree with you that it is political. It's also a preversion, they're using their oversight responsibilities as cover to hunt for dirt.

Yes, the liberal Democrats are hunting for dirt. On the other hand, patriotic Republicans had found it difficult to subpoena the illegitimate Kenyan usurper's returns because they'd been released. So instead they rightfully and correctly concentrated on his fake birth certificate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

you need to read some history if you think any of this is new. Only one thing is new, which is social media.  We've seen the criminality with Nixon, the inability to form sentences with Bush, the senility with Reagan.  Trump combines the best of each of them.  There have been worse periods in US politics and we're still all here in a place that's still better than most.

I agree that the intent isn't  new - but the information age has brought with it a more global, more immediate "awareness", and with that increased "awareness", the ability to more quickly add 1 to one and come up with oranges.  

You're right - as awful as we think things are right now?   We're still in a decent place compared to other systems of government and times in history.  That we're talking freely, don't have tanks sitting in town squares, full shelves in grocery stores and the ability to go and do pretty much whatever we want ought to speak to the system working, as ugly as the sausage making really is. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dog said:

How naive is that?

It's what Trump said  on the campaign trail. Are you saying he's a liar? Or naive? 

Just fucking say it Dog. You don't care about his crimes, potential, real, anything. He's your guy.

"perversions of justice" only occur to people on the right. fry the fucking lefties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

huh?  How much has Trump spent so far fighting investigations and subpoenas?  Why, if there was nothing to hide?

 

 

Screen Shot 2019-05-22 at 1.55.26 PM.png

Ha! You're citing Trump! I guess I disagree with you and Trump on this one. I don't think it reasonable to concluded guilt from failure to cooperate with investigators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It's what Trump said  on the campaign trail. Are you saying he's a liar? Or naive? 

Are you saying he's not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The prostate exam is something that's going to happen to every contentious candidate for office, and going forward every race for a major office will be contentious.

The vote has been subordinated to legal wrangling. 

You're assuming every candidate will flip-flop as much as Trump is on record doing, from before he even ran.

You're assuming every candidate will blatantly lie as much as Trump is on record doing before and during the campaign.

You're assuming every candidate will be secretive about finances like Trump has been.

You're assuming every candidate will select cabinet members that they were warned about like Trump has.

Sure, social media and the 24/7 news cycle MUST keep the time slots filled, even if it's with petty B.S.

But this isn't a  normal president.  He's being normalized, but it's just not normal what he's doing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

New York Passes Bill Giving Congress a Way to Get Trump’s State Tax Returns

Tax officials would be authorized to hand over his state returns to any one of three congressional committees, opening a new front in a heated battle.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/nyregion/trump-state-tax-returns.html

excerpt -

ALBANY — Even before he was elected president, Donald J. Trump had steadfastly refused to release his federal tax returns, bucking years of tradition among presidential candidates. His intransigence deepened once he entered the White House, defying a congressional subpoena for the tax records. 

Now, however, a nine-page workaround by the New York State Legislature may serve as a way for Congress to get its hands on a trove of Mr. Trump’s tax information. 

On Wednesday, the Democratic-led Legislature passed a bill that would permit New York State tax officials to hand over Mr. Trump’s state returns to any one of three congressional committees. Such returns — filed in New York, the president’s home state and business headquarters — would likely contain much of the same information as the contested federal returns. 

The bill is expected to be signed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a third-term Democrat and regular critic of Mr. Trump’s policies and behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Ha! You're citing Trump! I guess I disagree with you and Trump on this one. I don't think it reasonable to concluded guilt from failure to cooperate with investigators.

Clean very well can't point out your boy Shitstain's hypocrisy without actually citing him, now can he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mike G said:

But this isn't a  normal president.  He's being normalized, but it's just not normal what he's doing.

Being a mostly loyal Republican AGITC has to normalize Trump. Because if he doesn't it means the party, and AGITC, are wrong. And their positions are wrong. And that would be very, very, very bad.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Are you saying he's not?

So you are saying you know Trump lies, but you defend him, and shitpost with his points because they advance the cause even though you know they are incorrect lies.

Congrats Dog - that's what I've said about you for years. And that's why I treat you like a turd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mike G said:

You're assuming every candidate will flip-flop as much as Trump is on record doing, from before he even ran.

You're assuming every candidate will blatantly lie as much as Trump is on record doing before and during the campaign.

You're assuming every candidate will be secretive about finances like Trump has been.

You're assuming every candidate will select cabinet members that they were warned about like Trump has.

Sure, social media and the 24/7 news cycle MUST keep the time slots filled, even if it's with petty B.S.

But this isn't a  normal president.  He's being normalized, but it's just not normal what he's doing.

I'm assuming nothing of the sort.  

I *am* assuming that the parties will be vigorous in their attempts to diminish the opposition members, and will only do more of the investigations, litigation and negative messaging that we've seen in the recent administrations. 

What's being normalized is that anything that can be done to diminish the opposition is OK, unless the courts smack it down afterwards. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Being a mostly loyal Republican AGITC has to normalize Trump. Because if he doesn't it means the party, and AGITC, are wrong. And their positions are wrong. And that would be very, very, very bad.

Of course.  Thanks for your consistency. 

Edited to add - if there was a chance I was wrong in anything I'd said?  You'd have twisted and conflated that to the most insidious interpretation possible.  You didn't - thus, it's reasonable to deduce that you got nuttin'. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I agree that the intent isn't  new - but the information age has brought with it a more global, more immediate "awareness", and with that increased "awareness", the ability to more quickly add 1 to one and come up with oranges.  

You're right - as awful as we think things are right now?   We're still in a decent place compared to other systems of government and times in history.  That we're talking freely, don't have tanks sitting in town squares, full shelves in grocery stores and the ability to go and do pretty much whatever we want ought to speak to the system working, as ugly as the sausage making really is. 

I'm not sure what you mean about awareness or what it means to you.

More people have a basic education than anytime in history, though I think the US is backsliding a bit like we are on life expectancy the last couple years.  There's certainly lots more information out there...whether it's good or bad or accurate or factual is a different story.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The prostate exam is something that's going to happen to every contentious candidate for office, and going forward every race for a major office will be contentious.

The vote has been subordinated to legal wrangling. 

Yep...Democrats are still trying to win the 2016 election by any means necessary...

The voting machines were hacked, when that failed.

Recounts in select states, when that failed.

Appeals to faithless lectors, when that failed.

25 amendment, when that failed.

Logan act, when that failed.

Emoluments, when that failed.

Hookers and the slimy lawyer, when that failed

Michael Cohen, when that failed.

Mueller, RUSSIANS, Russian agent, pee pee tapes, associates flipping, collusion, obstruction...when all that failed.

Congressional investigations...to be continued

 

Share this post


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

 I disagree with you and Trump 

You HATE TRUMP????? FUCKING HATER GLOBALIST SHILL!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'm assuming nothing of the sort.  

I *am* assuming that the parties will be vigorous in their attempts to diminish the opposition members, and will only do more of the investigations, litigation and negative messaging that we've seen in the recent administrations. 

What's being normalized is that anything that can be done to diminish the opposition is OK, unless the courts smack it down afterwards. 

They've always been vigorous.

Do you think they'll be more or less vigorous if the next candidate says "I'm under audit, I'll release my tax returns when the audit is done", then never releases them?

Or, if they get released, will the inquiries about them stop?

Again, there's SO much about this guy that is not normal, it's crazy to compare him to any other politician.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy, Shitstain hasn't released his tax returns (as promised) nor has he placed his assets in a blind trust. With exactly that in mind, do you think he shouldn't be subjected to a political prostate exam? We're not expecting you to accept the results of the exam. We're just wondering whether you think the examination shouldn't proceed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Of course.  Thanks for your consistency. 

Edited to add - if there was a chance I was wrong in anything I'd said?  You'd have twisted and conflated that to the most insidious interpretation possible.  You didn't - thus, it's reasonable to deduce that you got nuttin'. 

All Trump has to fucking do to stop the prostate exam is do what he fucking said he would do. Release his tax returns. Be relatively hands off with his businesses. But he won't do that. And you defend him by pretending it's a "witch hunt".

Nothing changes with you, that doesn't mean I got nuttin'. It means you are still too fucking scared to look at the truth.

Share this post


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

They've always been vigorous.

Do you think they'll be more or less vigorous if the next candidate says "I'm under audit, I'll release my tax returns when the audit is done", then never releases them?

Or, if they get released, will the inquiries about them stop?

Again, there's SO much about this guy that is not normal, it's crazy to compare him to any other politician.

So anything goes wrt Trump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I'm not sure what you mean about awareness or what it means to you.

More people have a basic education than anytime in history, though I think the US is backsliding a bit like we are on life expectancy the last couple years.  There's certainly lots more information out there...whether it's good or bad or accurate or factual is a different story.

My quoting "awareness" was an attempt to use the same word to mean a couple different things.  The overabundance of access to news and information permit casual consumers who don't take the time to develop an understanding of the background or context of a situation to easily form improper opinions that on the surface seem perfectly rational.   This same overabundance of access to news and information permit serious consumers who DO take the time to understand that context and background to take positions that are sometimes contrary to the "common understanding", thus setting the stage for discussion or conflict. 

The point?   This access also seems to reinforce everyone's opinion that their personal interpretation is the only one that could be correct, and that anyone disagreeing with them must be doing so with intentional malice, hence the 1 and one = oranges comment.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

Yep...Democrats are still trying to win the 2016 election by any means necessary...

The voting machines were hacked, when that failed.

Recounts in select states, when that failed.

Appeals to faithless lectors, when that failed.

25 amendment, when that failed.

Logan act, when that failed.

Emoluments, when that failed.

Hookers and the slimy lawyer, when that failed

Michael Cohen, when that failed.

Mueller, RUSSIANS, Russian agent, pee pee tapes, associates flipping, collusion, obstruction...when all that failed.

Congressional investigations...to be continued

 

Lol. Half that shit is Republicans. Stupid shitposting rightwing clown - fuck off back to your little festering Q-sore.

Share this post


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

Yep...Democrats are still trying to win the 2016 election by any means necessary...

The voting machines were hacked, when that failed.

Recounts in select states, when that failed.

Appeals to faithless lectors, when that failed.

25 amendment, when that failed.

Logan act, when that failed.

Emoluments, when that failed.

Hookers and the slimy lawyer, when that failed

Michael Cohen, when that failed.

Mueller, RUSSIANS, Russian agent, pee pee tapes, associates flipping, collusion, obstruction...when all that failed.

Congressional investigations...to be continued

 

It's not just the Ds - it's the state of political  discourse, and from what we've seen from the last several administrations? It's going to continue the downhill slide. 

Share this post


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

Guy, Shitstain hasn't released his tax returns nor has he placed his assets in a blind trust. With exactly that in mind, do you think he shouldn't be subjected to a political prostate exam?

From what in anything that I wrote did you come up with that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

So anything goes wrt Trump?

Yeah nah.  Not even close to what I said.

You normalize him if you want.  

I miss the old Dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

From what in anything that I wrote did you come up with that? 

Your general approach. But my question remains asked. Do you think Shitstain shouldn't be subjected to a political prostate exam?

Share this post


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

Yeah nah.  Not even close to what I said.

You normalize him if you want.  

I miss the old Dog.

So what was your point in citing all the things that are exceptional about Trump if not that it justifies exceptional treatment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mike G said:

I miss the old Dog.

Dog's just being a loyal Republican. Spewing stupid lies, angry that he's being called on them, frightened that they only play in his echochamber of stupid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

All Trump has to fucking do to stop the prostate exam is do what he fucking said he would do. Release his tax returns. Be relatively hands off with his businesses. But he won't do that. And you defend him by pretending it's a "witch hunt".

Nothing changes with you, that doesn't mean I got nuttin'. It means you are still too fucking scared to look at the truth.

I'm defending him now?   Brilliant.  You really aren't very good at this reading comprehension stuff Jiblets - try reading what was written rather than continuously trying to shove people into boxes in your own imagination.   When he DOES release his tax returns - it's not going to stop anything, the party apparatchik is going to use anything that they can to intensify their attempts to diminish, because they're convinced that their will is all that matters, damn the stupid voters anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites