|
Replies: 95
| visibility 1
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [13104]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14104
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Re: Striking statement from a very famous Pub judge...
Jun 16, 2022, 5:38 PM
|
|
I know all of you soyboys don’t want Trump to succeed. You are terrified of a strong economy for some reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1515]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1763
Joined: 9/6/20
|
Re: Striking statement from a very famous Pub judge...
Jun 16, 2022, 5:45 PM
|
|
Still deflecting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2693]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
that's a major indictment coming from him
Jun 16, 2022, 5:58 PM
|
|
This guy was a stalwart in the GOP. Clerked for Scalia when he was a circuit court judge, shortlisted for SCOTUS under Bush 45. Federalist heavyweight. Knows everybody and is known by everyone who was anyone in the GOP.
This isn't the kind of shifty apologist rhetoric you hear from the McConnells, the Grahams, and the Kevin McCarty's of the GOP.
"Clear and present danger...."
Cue Le Whatabout Flagrantes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4018]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 8042
Joined: 12/9/01
|
Re: that's a major indictment coming from him
Jun 16, 2022, 6:01 PM
|
|
You are no longer considered conservative unless you fellate DADDY. Ask LCheney.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13104]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14104
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Re: that's a major indictment coming from him
Jun 16, 2022, 6:07 PM
[ in reply to that's a major indictment coming from him ] |
|
He must have Intel that next time, Trump plans to have TWO guys with fur hats and spears to topple the USA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2693]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
Re: that's a major indictment coming from him
Jun 16, 2022, 6:15 PM
|
|
I've seen you now, KeoweeIndians, in full. No respect for the constitution. No respect for the country.
That's ok, at least we know where you stand. Love it or leave it, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: that's a major indictment coming from him
Jun 16, 2022, 6:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2693]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
Re: that's a major indictment coming from him
Jun 16, 2022, 6:35 PM
|
|
That's not the issue this GOP judge was even talking about.
If Trump is allowed to run in 2024, he will do whatever it takes to seize power, and after everything we've seen here, there should be no doubt about that.
If he's allowed to run, there will be a breakdown in law and order. That's the message you ain't gettin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
He actually said it goes beyond just Trump running...
Jun 16, 2022, 6:50 PM
|
|
it's whoever is the "anointed" republican leader running in 2024. This is a very important and influential Republican Judge condemning the whole party, not just trump, in that speech.
It's pretty damning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65818
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Out of curiosity,
Jun 16, 2022, 7:08 PM
|
|
were you at all familiar with this "very important and influential Republican Judge" before he was cited in this article?
The man has a nice resume, but speaking as a lifelong conservative who tries to keep track of the heavy hitters, I'd never heard of him until Pence cited him (for the record, I agree with both Luttig and Pence on the topic of not certifying the election being unconstitutional).
At the end of the day, he's a a data point for consideration of this topic with no more or less gravitas than any other experienced legal mind offering their opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Out of curiosity,
Jun 16, 2022, 7:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
You don't think that resume gives his words weight?
Jun 16, 2022, 7:32 PM
[ in reply to Out of curiosity, ] |
|
Regardless of whether or not I or you know who he is? I think it's impossible to just handwave his testimony away as some "data point."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65818
Joined: 5/6/13
|
That's not what I said.
Jun 16, 2022, 8:59 PM
|
|
Your opinion and my opinion are just some "data points".
I was clear to indicate he offered far more credibility than the opinions of laymen like us by saying "he's a a data point for consideration of this topic with no more or less gravitas than any other experienced legal mind offering their opinion. "
Just because you guys are buying and repeating the lines that this guy is offering some super-duper important Republican proclamation, doesn't mean it's so. I'd give him no more weight than other legal scholars in considering this.
Clerked for SC justices? Great, so have hundreds, if not thousands, of other well-connected rich kids.
Assistant AG in the office of legal counsel? Yawn--he helped Justices wade through the highly political appointment process.
His time on the appeals Court is the prime qualifier, IMHO, to hear and consider his opinions on this, but it's not like there's something in his history that makes him the ne plus ultra of Republican Jan 6th opinions like you guys are portraying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
I agree about our opinions being just "data points"
Jun 16, 2022, 10:22 PM
|
|
although barely. I'm not sure they even qualify to that level. We are just dumdums talking on the internet.
This judge is a staunch republican/conservative going back to at least Reagan and first Bush. He worked to get Clarance Thomas on the Supreme Court, He sent 40 clerks to clerkships on Supreme Court and most of those were to Scalia and Thomas (and one of those clerks was Ted Cruz), he worked on the appeals court for 15 years and he's been on many short lists for Supreme Court Justice nominations.
This isn't some nobody Republican. But it does beg the question, if this guy isn't that "plus ultra" of Republican Jan 6th opinions, who would be? Scalia's rotten corpse reanimated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
What would be some reasonably respectable conservatives....
Jun 16, 2022, 11:28 PM
[ in reply to That's not what I said. ] |
|
that don't share the same opinion.
Or better stated...who are some serious and thoughtful conservatives that don't need to stand for election that don't see what Trump did as an issue?
Newt Gingrich is one that comes to mind that has been downplaying Jan 6 and making some pretty crazy statements on the Jan 6 committee. But who else in the elder-GOP is down-playing Trump's tactics post-election actions and Jan 6 happenings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65818
Joined: 5/6/13
|
You are also arguing a point I’m not making.
Jun 17, 2022, 8:00 AM
|
|
I’m just noting the hyperbole being employed to somehow try to make this guy’s statement a mic drop moment.
Deweather starts with “striking statement from very famous Republican judge”
1) fame is a dumb criteria for credibility. Maybe we should see what Cardi B has to say—she’s famous!
2) based on the fact that almost no one outside the DC establishment is familiar with this guy, it’s a massive misuse of “very famous”.
Then the tweet author calls the guy “pre-eminent”.
Pre-Eminent—“Superior to or notable above all others”. Well that’s just not true either is it?
So for those of us who try to think logically and unemotionally, the message gets lost by the disingenuous attempts to inflate his opinion to more than it is. Just be honest and say “Damning opinion from a Republican appeals court justice”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Your emotional need to have a "gotcha" has dug you a hole...
Jun 17, 2022, 4:30 PM
|
|
If your only point is to argue that this judge isn't as famous as Cardi B, then I guess I'd have to concede that point. But, that wasn't the argument, was it? Or at least it's a weird use of a semantic argument in order to try and discredit the weight of the words given by a prestigious Republican judge.
Why did you disregard so much of his resume in the earlier post? Why disregard his connections to Reagan/Bush/Bush? Why disregard his deep connections with the Supreme Court justices of Scalia and Thomas? Why disregard he's been on many short lists for Supreme Court Justice? He even has a connection to the case through Cruz and Eastman as they were clerks for him. That's all before you get to the part about him being a former Appeals Court Justice. Was ignoring that context and background a genuine attempt to look at his statement logically and unemotionally? If so, fine, but saying he's just a "republican appeals court justice" raises questions to that assertion. And it certainly should make one think maybe "famous" in the "cardi B" sense wasn't the intention? (Note: I concede I probably should have used "prestigious" and/or "respected" more than "famous")
I'm curious though since you don't think this guy is "pre-eminent" (which by the way also means "very distinguished in some way") whose opinion would you put over this judge? As far as I can tell, it seems only a sitting Supreme Court Justice would fit the bill. But maybe you can think of someone else I can't?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65818
Joined: 5/6/13
|
short version of all that:
Jun 17, 2022, 10:42 PM
|
|
"Yeah, I overstated it but I'm gonna double down."
And yes, I see you read his wikipedia entry like I did, because neither of us knew jackshid about the guy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Still not gonna answer the question I see.
Jun 18, 2022, 1:18 AM
|
|
Which is an answer in its own right, I guess. It's okay if you want to dismiss the judges' testimony and handwave him away as just some republican judge but the fact you can't or won't answer who you would give greater weight to undercuts that argument severely.
But I think we both know and understand that. So if you're okay feeling good about your semantic "victory" then I'm good with feeling good about being proven right on the larger point and we can finish this "data point" feeling like we won something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65818
Joined: 5/6/13
|
In an attempt to be anything other than wrong, you’re still
Jun 18, 2022, 8:18 AM
|
|
Obfuscating my point, which I’ve learned is sort of your debate style. So no, I really wasn’t addressing your question, because it wasn’t necessary. I’m not ignoring or waving away his opinion, as you state, and in fact his opinion is one I will consider. Neither is your question “who would I give more weight to” relevant, as it goes against my basic point as well.
Experienced opinions are just that, opinions to be considered by one as they decide their position on a topic, whether those opinions are from Luttig, or from more well-known constitutional experts of various ideologies such as Dershowitz, Edwin Meese, Thomas Ambro, or Garrett Epps. Likewise, any of the current/retired SCJ’s points are clearly worthy of consideration and also carry the weight of being required to be accepted if this case ever goes anywhere.
Trying to position a singular opinion though as “one (famous/pre-eminent) person said this, boom, it’s over folks—-your minds are made up and the case is closed” is just intellectually lazy. I don’t think you’re simple enough to think that way, but my ultimate point was you sure tried to pass the propaganda effort on in your post, and trying to reframe the debate as “who is more important” doesn’t change that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
I tried to compromise so you can feel like you won something
Jun 18, 2022, 4:35 PM
|
|
because I know how important that is to you, but you wouldn't take it. Oh well.
My point was never that Luttig's testimony ends the debate, only that his reputation has significant weight. The fact is with his background as a well-respected Republican Judge who is far from a "neocon" or "leftist" offers a powerful perspective that can't be easily dismissed. I think our conversation proves that out. So, no matter how much bloviating and mischaracterization is attempted it won't change what my argument was originally about. It's right there available for all to read and see for themselves.
As for the charge of "intellectually lazy," both Flow and I tried continuing with the conversation with the perspective that Luttig's words have significant weight but were open to hearing if there were others that might have more weight and who, in your opinion, would be more persuasive. You seem to have taken some sort of offense to that natural continuation of the conversation, so I'm not sure the intellectually lazy is an accurate term for me, Flow, or you really. We simply didn't want to travel down the same path, apparently.
The fact you have taken the position that Luttig's testimony is part of a 'propaganda effort' certainly frames where you're coming from on this topic, and so I understand why you feel the way you do. But like I said, it's certainly a different path and one I don't wish to go down with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65818
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Why can’t you reply without twisting words?
Jun 18, 2022, 7:19 PM
|
|
It’s seriously bizarre, man. Luttig’s testimony itself is hardly a propaganda effort and I haven’t said such, so that doesn’t even qualify as a “part”. The way you jumped in with the FAMOUS bullshittt and the positioning of it by the Twitter clown is the propaganda. Have a good one though, I’m done with this too.
(In b4 “ok”).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
I'll make this quick b/c it's Father's Day...
Jun 19, 2022, 2:54 PM
|
|
and because this conversation is just going in circles which we're both tired of dealing with.
it's seriously weird to claim the use of "famous" as propaganda in order to mischaracterize the point of my post. That would only make sense if you thought I was working for Judge Luttig as PR in order to elevate his name for a book or something he's selling. It makes no sense in the context of saying because of the Judge's resume and background that his words/testimony had significant weight behind it.
Happy Father's Day though, hope you have a good one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2693]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
Re: Out of curiosity,
Jun 16, 2022, 8:26 PM
[ in reply to Out of curiosity, ] |
|
He’s not just any old data point, and you know it, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65818
Joined: 5/6/13
|
ok, so you knew who he was?***
Jun 16, 2022, 8:44 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [257]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 1532
Joined: 10/29/20
|
Who is “they?” The Republican judge?***
Jun 16, 2022, 8:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Who is “they?” The Republican judge?***
Jun 16, 2022, 8:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4018]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 8042
Joined: 12/9/01
|
Re: Who is “they?” The Republican judge?***
Jun 17, 2022, 5:18 PM
|
|
Trump vs LCheney. Who is more conservative and who would you vote for? You know, things like upholding the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, morals, family and Christian values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Who is “they?” The Republican judge?***
Jun 17, 2022, 5:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1515]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1763
Joined: 9/6/20
|
Re: Who is “they?” The Republican judge?***
Jun 17, 2022, 5:49 PM
|
|
True to your MAGA roots!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4018]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 8042
Joined: 12/9/01
|
Re: Who is “they?” The Republican judge?***
Jun 17, 2022, 8:48 PM
[ in reply to Re: Who is “they?” The Republican judge?*** ] |
|
I want to know why you, as a Constitutional, Christian, Conservative, want LCheney to get in front of a bus. Did you feel this way prior to her deciding to stand up and protect the Constitution rather than bending the knee to DADDY?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Who is “they?” The Republican judge?***
Jun 17, 2022, 9:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4018]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 8042
Joined: 12/9/01
|
Re: Who is “they?” The Republican judge?***
Jun 19, 2022, 4:18 PM
|
|
You don't want to admit that the "only" reason you despise Cheney is because she stood up to DADDY. It has absolutely nothing to do with her voting record. You are so broken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: So does G.W.Bush say bad things about Pub party
Jun 18, 2022, 9:43 PM
[ in reply to He actually said it goes beyond just Trump running... ] |
|
It is easy to find "Bushy Republicans" who blast the Republican party these days.
L.Cheney is just one of many.
Heck, even G.W.Bush commonly blasts the Republican Party.
This has been the M.O. of the "Bushy Republicans" ever since DJT destroyed the future of Bush family political dynasty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4018]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 8042
Joined: 12/9/01
|
Re: So does G.W.Bush say bad things about Pub party
Jun 19, 2022, 4:20 PM
|
|
What makes someone a "bushy" republican? That they believe in family values and fiscal responsibility? Belief that elections are not "rigged" without solid evidence that says otherwise? Do "Bushy" republicans show too much respect towards our military, including those who were "captured" in the line of duty?
Please explain. We're waiting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: So does G.W.Bush say bad things about Pub party
Jun 19, 2022, 6:39 PM
|
|
One of your better questions ... glad to see you coming along in that department.
Bushy Republicans and fiscal responsibility? Who on earth outside of the insane asylum would relate the two? Just because (fill in the first name blank ____) Bush talks fiscal responsibility doesn't begin to mean that he/she/it is financially responsible.
Bushy Republicans and respect for the military? Bush 41 was a true military guy. Bush 43 was a silver spoon Nat. Guard service avoider ... lots of lip-service respect for the military, sure. But at his biggest moment (deciding whether to go big and strong after Bin Laden at Tora Bora, he soiled himself and agreed to negotiate ... Neville Chamberlin style). This led to the 'endless' Afghan war that led to Biden's completion of the embarrassment.
Military 'leaders' like Milley and Austin didn't like Trump because Trump planned to end wars quickly (beat ISIS fast), which meant less of the on-the-side defense contract kickbacks for the military brass. But the military rank and file very much like Trump, despite his stupid comment about McCain.
As for elections, remember Bush 43 and the hanging chad episode? It's very likely that Jeb Bush rigged the FL election, and his secretary of state rigged the 'hanging chad' recount.
In summary, the Bush Republicans are dead as a political dynasty ... not a moment too soon, thanks solely to DJT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4018]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 8042
Joined: 12/9/01
|
Re: So does G.W.Bush say bad things about Pub party
Jun 19, 2022, 7:24 PM
|
|
All that text and you didn't tell us what makes a republican "bushy" vs a republican that is respectable by yourself and MAGA. Do "bushy" republicans not respect conservative values? Please explain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: So does G.W.Bush say bad things about Pub party
Jun 19, 2022, 8:43 PM
|
|
Oh rats ... I had hoped that you had acquired some ability to understand and process new information.
Apparently I'm mistaken on that assumpition ... my reply more than answered your question, but you don't seem to understand.
I'll leave you and your posts alone again. They are pointless and simply a waste of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4018]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 8042
Joined: 12/9/01
|
Re: So does G.W.Bush say bad things about Pub party
Jun 19, 2022, 9:44 PM
|
|
Why are you struggling with defining what a "bushy" republican is. Is it cause you don't want to admit the truth, which is that "bushy" is simply a republican who doesn't bend the knee to DADDY. Prove me wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7207]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9432
Joined: 12/18/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65818
Joined: 5/6/13
|
The playbook that failed miserably?
Jun 16, 2022, 9:01 PM
|
|
That sounds like a stupid move by them if it's true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Isn't the real problem that the President of the US...
Jun 16, 2022, 11:16 PM
|
|
actually ran the play?
If even part of what is be alleged actually happened it's pretty dang concerning...right?
Even more so concerning is that the guy that did that is the frontrunner for the GOP nomination if he chooses to run.
It's not that it didn't work...it's that it was tried in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Isn't the real problem that the President of the US...
Jun 16, 2022, 11:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
You don't think he can win gop nomination? And yeah....
Jun 17, 2022, 12:51 AM
|
|
He's in my head. He is a national disgrace and has ruined/come close to ruining the conservative movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: You don't think he can win gop nomination? And yeah....
Jun 17, 2022, 1:08 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65818
Joined: 5/6/13
|
I could not disagree more with your last statement.
Jun 17, 2022, 7:49 AM
[ in reply to You don't think he can win gop nomination? And yeah.... ] |
|
Trump didn’t ruin the conservative movement—the movement had already long been ruined. Trump only got into office because the establishment “conservatives” had become so watered-down, submissive, and unwilling to stop chasing mass adoration in the occasions when we did elect them to power, that the net conservative effect of their election was pretty close to zero.
Trump was a Hail Mary attempt to try something different because the voting public had been burned too many times and knew electing an establishment Pub would have been SSDD.
Trump wouldn’t have stood a chance with strong conservatives leading the party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
Yep, baffling how so many seemingly cannot understand this.
Jun 17, 2022, 10:16 AM
|
|
Every time I see people yearn for the GOP of old with all of those guys who got curb stomped by a hostile mediaI'm like
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38237
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Why are y'all supporting a new GOP
Jun 18, 2022, 4:11 PM
|
|
That has eschewed conservatism for populist authoritarianism.
Y'all don't even really get what it means to be conservative anymore. It's just an attraction to people who supposedly talk tough and who y'all think will strong arm the populous into your worldview.
How any of you have had an ounce of support for Trumpism is beyond me if you're claiming to be a Republican.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65818
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Oh look, it’s the cata/deweather school of word-twisting
Jun 18, 2022, 7:26 PM
|
|
in action again. GD you guys think you’re clever with this crap.
I didn’t say Trumpism was conservatism. I said his brand of populism filled a vacuum that was created by the pissspoor brand of “conservatism” eschewed by the mainstream Pubs that preceded him.
I literally said if they had been true conservatives, he never would have won, and that is not because he represented true conservatism, but because he simply was vastly different from what they were.
I would have preferred that a true conservative won out as well, so cut your “if you don’t agree with me 100% you’re a Trumpie sophomoric bulllshit—it’s impossible to have a real debate with you guys because you just do the nyah-nyah I’m right and you’re wrong because I said so crap the minute anyone varies from your opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38237
Joined: 11/30/98
|
If you'll care to note...
Jun 18, 2022, 10:33 PM
|
|
My reply was to Lakebum, not you.
But the hissy fit was fun.
I would have preferred that a true conservative won out as well, so cut your “if you don’t agree with me 100% you’re a Trumpie sophomoric bulllshit—it’s impossible to have a real debate with you guys because you just do the nyah-nyah I’m right and you’re wrong because I said so crap the minute anyone varies from your opinion.
Let's lighten up, Francis.
But since we're here, and you seem to recognize that Trump WASN'T a conservative nor was he a real Republican, why in the sam #### do you continue to fall over yourself to defend him and his admin's actions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65818
Joined: 5/6/13
|
You replied with “ya’ll”. That’s the plural of “you”,
Jun 20, 2022, 7:25 AM
|
|
Which most would take to mean that you’re replying to more than Lakebum, and since his reply was basically a quick agreement to me, it was a pretty normal conclusion that I was included in “ya’ll”. Next time, if you’re just aiming your comment at Lakebum, try “you” instead.
And I’m not defending Trump most of the time—-it’s quite rare that I do—it just seems that way to you because I I don’t share your fervor for the topic. I also think that extremism in the pursuit of attacking extremism is still extremism, and some of you really lack a lot of self-awareness in how far you’ve gone off the deep end in your crusade. The correction efforts to the Trump era aren’t much better than what they’re fighting in a lot of cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38237
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: You replied with “ya’ll”. That’s the plural of “you”,
Jun 20, 2022, 12:27 PM
|
|
It was more of a collective y’all over those who claim to be conservative/Republican in general who continue to defend him, which is more up Bum’s alley and less yours. Regardless, your response wasn’t warranted even if I was directing at you. I don’t twist people’s words here. You know I don’t.
I will say you are quick to criticize the details of those critical of Trump while remaining oddly silent at absurd behavior of Trumpies here that you’ve lambasted similarly on the Mange or Lunge. NC calling for a totalitarian state? Maniac cheering on Jan. 6? The list goes on for the Trumpists absurdity here, but you never seem to want to point that out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65818
Joined: 5/6/13
|
There’s a million of you guys doing what you’re doing.
Jun 20, 2022, 6:04 PM
|
|
There’s only a few doing what I’m doing (having massive disdain for Trump while trying maintain some perspective in examining his Presidency)—-who wants to follow the herd? It should indicate neither agreement nor disagreement with you, although both have been applicable at various times, depending on the topic.
I took the road less traveled by and whatnot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
That is worded well...
Jun 19, 2022, 3:46 PM
[ in reply to Oh look, it’s the cata/deweather school of word-twisting ] |
|
But I'm still not sure I 100% agree with the void part.
Maybe during the primary...Trump did fill a void there for folks wanted someone who would "fight" and also benefited from the chaos of so many candidates.
But now...after we have seen what he did as POTUS...how do explain the support now in terms of a void filler in the context of actual conservative principles?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Most people that use the term "establishment"...
Jun 19, 2022, 3:40 PM
[ in reply to I could not disagree more with your last statement. ] |
|
don't really understand what conservatism is...and I'm not suggesting that's you...but most of that is populist nonsense. The same people that rail against establishment Republicans would typically cite fiscal policy and role of federal government as their main issues that they find fault with the "establishment".
Paul Ryan was the Speaker when Trump was elected. Is he "establishment"? Was he not fiscally conservative? The GOP had a deep bench of young up and coming conservatives. Most all have had to bend to the political winds of Trump now. Likely ruined.
I get the general dissatisfaction with much of the party leadership pre-Trump, but I also think a lot of it was misplaced.
But back to Trump and conservatism...especially fiscal policy and role of government. Trump did nothing to take on out of control spending, SS and Medicare reform, role of fed gov, etc... In fact, I. Many ways he made it worse. Think of the ppl that now associate Trump with being conservative...would they have an impression of living within the Constitution? Shrinking the role of the fed gov? Balancing the budget?
His best accomplishment was easing restrictions and regulation enforcement on business. Which ended the day he left office because he didn't do sheet via Congress.
"Chasing adoration" is the very essence of Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Political "labels" have no sacrosanct definitions
Jun 19, 2022, 4:59 PM
|
|
Ya'll supporters of the Democrat party seem unable to understand that today's "Trump Republicans" are not emotionally bound to a "label" which has a sacrosanct definition for a political philosophy.
Conservative / Liberal / Etc. are labels whose definition can be changed randomly by the person or entity that defines those labels.
Trump Republicans more than recognize that the "conservative" label doesn't mean squat ... same as the "liberal" label doesn't mean squat.
The DJT examples in this post will be limited to comparisons / contrasts of economic aspects of 'traditional conservative' vs. "Trump Republican."
DJT is an economic populist whose economic policies are in line with national defense necessities.
DJT supports middle class tax cuts. (This is in line with 'traditional conservative' practices.)
DJT does not support many Democrat boondoggles such as spending and tax breaks for the Green New Deal. ('Traditional conservatives' [e.g., today's main stream Republicans]) these days support all kinds of ridiculous boondoggles.)
DJT supports the Border Wall (for a variety of reasons); the economic aspect of the Border Wall does not fit the 'traditional Republican' definition of 'unfettered competition.'
DJT supports tariffs against foreign nations which are needed to allow critical American industrial and technological infrastructure to survive (example being semiconductor manufacturing, semiconductor materials, etc.) 'Traditional conservatives' are fine to have this outsourced to the lowest cost foreign nation.
Trump supporters pay attention to what is being done, not to whether the things that Trump wants to do fit within someone's easily-changed definition of 'conservative' or 'liberal.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
It's ironic you think I'm a Democrat supporter...
Jun 19, 2022, 6:24 PM
|
|
But anyways...
Middle class tax cut...ok. I supported that. In fact, that whole bill was a fitting illustration of Trump for me. I supported his rhetoric...but his execution was awful. He owes that one all to Paul Ryan for saving that bill in spite of Trump's undisciplined actions when Ryan was trying to get it through Congress. That bill happened in spite of Trump, not because of him. But in the context of this conversation I agree with you. But what about the rest?? Where was the restructuring of the scope of the federal government? Where was the fiscal restraint? GW Bush passed broader tax cuts, yet many Trump supporters would now say he was the "establishment" they were fighting against.
Trump didn't support the Green New Deal. No one on the right and most in the middle don't either. Too bad he ushered in the loss of the House and then led to the loss of the Senate because he couldn't shut up about the election "being stolen". What other "boondoggles" are you referencing?
Trump supports the border wall? Where is it? I agree with his general sentiment in immigration. He was just so full of crap in his rhetoric..."and I'll make Mexico pay for it". 4 yrs...2 with GOP control of both houses...where is it? Always struck me as odd that he didn't start asking for real wall funding until the Dems took over the house.
And tariffs? Do you think they worked after a few yrs? No one seems to be mentioning them much now given the current inflation, a good chuck of which is owed to the resulting trade war with China. The execution was horrible. Caught the steel industry off guard and all it did initially was drive up the commodity pricing of steel instantly by 15% and then force us manufacturers to add the 25% tariffs on top of that. There was no spare US capacity available at the time. Was a real killer for my company +45% overnight on the steel we use. Then we got the pleasure of adding 25% to the rest of material we get from China. Not even US sources for most of it. Total CF for my industry.
I will correct your last sentence. Trump supporters pay attention to what is SAID, not what is done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: It's ironic you think I'm a Democrat supporter...
Jun 19, 2022, 6:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Doubt it's many...just the ones....
Jun 19, 2022, 7:02 PM
|
|
that have a 2-team outlook of politics. If you don't like Trump, you must be a democrat. Normally it shows a fairly simpleton view of the world. But to each his own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Doubt it's many...just the ones....
Jun 19, 2022, 8:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: It's ironic you think I'm a Democrat supporter...
Jun 19, 2022, 7:25 PM
[ in reply to It's ironic you think I'm a Democrat supporter... ] |
|
I appreciate your engagement and good comments. Here goes with the context.
'Trump's execution of the tax cuts was bad.' You got that right. His VP and most of his cabinet and advisors all hated him, with the exception of Navarro and maybe one or two others. Jeff Sessions was not one of the DJT haters; Sessions was simply a weak choice. These phony advisors on his staff were mad that Trump's economic populism would undercut their special interest deals. So they were either useless or (worse) speciously providing DJT bad advice as far as execution.
'Trump was no different from other Reps as far as Green New Deal.' In rhetoric, sure, 'traditional Pubs' and Trump were similar in this respect. But in practice, the 'traditional Pubs' (esp. in Congress) were too afraid of criticism. DJT was emotionally tough enough to deal with the criticism, and played a big part in 'stemming the tide' on GND spending. That is, until after the 2020 election.
'Border Wall ... where is it? You're kidding, right? If you really don't know the details, then respond again and I'll refresh your memory.
'Loss of the House (2018) was DJT's fault? There were too many Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney types who created discord and therefore negative publicity towards the Republican party overall. These 'traditional pub' type legislators were happy to lose the House; therefore they had cover for not passing / supporting bills that would have negatively impacted the crony capitalist deals which had been the hallmark of 'traditional Pubs' and now for Democrats.
'Loss of the Sentate in 2020? Remember Coronavirus and the stupendously bad impact it had on the 2020 year USA economy? Remember the old (and still true) maxim "It's the Economy, Stupid."? Yet despite Coronavirus, DJT and several razor-thin GOP senate candidates nearly pulled off relection.
'Tariffs ... did they work?' From my line of work / employer's footprint, I know darn well that they were on the path towards making a meaningful impact as far as putting us back on the path towards restoring our national capability in the semiconductor / semiconductor materials arena. (This is one of the few DJT policies which Biden has not disemboweled ... to Biden's credit.) There are numerous other 'less visible' strategic industries where the DJT populist tariffs ... despite the vehement (but private) objections from 'traditional Pubs' ... are still helping to 'heal and restore' these less-visible but strategically important industries.
You'll never hear about this via usual media outlets, however. (If the media made widespread efforts to expose this 'continuation of tariffs' thing, then there would be too much pressure for Biden to bear because he has NOT dismantled this part of the DJT agenda.)
'Tariffs re: Steel.' Steel prices sure as heck did rise due to Trump's tariffs ... but what did that do to restrain the availability of steel in the USA since 2020? No impact. The supply shortages were caused largely by the reduced rate of steel mill operations due to factors related to Covid 19. USA makes ~ 75% of the steel that we use; Brazil is the biggest importer of steel to the USA. The other factor has been F_uqed up global logistics, which became highly f_uqed up when Biden's boy P.Buttigieg emphasized interfering with the USA's logistics chain (i.e., emphasized green-ness) instead of helping the USA ports to improve loading / off-loading infrastructure. Bottlenecks at the USA ports are arguably the worst in the world.
OK, my fingers need some rest, enough for the moment. (And I'm not talking about THAT finger, although a little Father's Day TLC from the missus would be welcome for that one).
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I don't follow/agree with some of what you said....
Jun 20, 2022, 8:45 AM
|
|
"His VP and most of his cabinet and advisors all hated him"
Huh? First, I don't think that's true. Second, his VP and cabinet had nothing to do with Trump going off ###### and saying things that time and time again torpedoed what Ryan and House and Senate leaders were doing.
"These phony advisors on his staff were mad that Trump's economic populism would undercut their special interest deals. So they were either useless or (worse) speciously providing DJT bad advice as far as execution."
Can you give a few examples?
'Trump was no different from other Reps as far as Green New Deal.' In rhetoric, sure, 'traditional Pubs' and Trump were similar in this respect. But in practice, the 'traditional Pubs' (esp. in Congress) were too afraid of criticism. DJT was emotionally tough enough to deal with the criticism, and played a big part in 'stemming the tide' on GND spending. That is, until after the 2020 election.
This I'm not following. The GND legislatively was brought up by AOC during Trump's tenure. What prominent "traditional Pubs" were supporting the GND and not limiting spending in that direction?
Border wall...I know the situation well and referenced the lack of budget requests in the Trump's first budget for it.
There were too many Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney types who created discord and therefore negative publicity towards the Republican party overall.
What the huh? I'm sorry, but that is just simply false. Cheney, especially, was put into the House Leadership (Conference Chair) AFTER the GOP lost the majority in 2018 and was a big supporter of Trump until the 2020 election aftermath. She has an extremely consistent voting record with McCarthy and Scalise. Can you point out what Liz Cheney did prior to the 2018 election to "create discord"?
Senate
I have zero doubt that the GOP would have won the 2 Senate seats in GA where run-off elections were held after the Presidential election. Trump wouldn't let the 2 GOP candidates pivot away from election fraud at all and it cost both seats and, in turn, lead to dem control of the Senate.
but what did that do to restrain the availability of steel in the USA since 2020? No impact.
I didn't say the tariffs lead to a steel shortage. I'm saying there wasn't enough spare capacity to allow US manufactures to purchase US steel when the tariffs hit. So, the result was many US manufacturers to essentially get hit with the 25% tariff. There are lot of different kinds of steel...the type we use has limited US production and none has been added post-tariff. As a general statement, US steel production rose steadily in 2017 and 2018. It flattened in 2019. Tariffs started in March 2018. Output hasn't recovered to pre-covid levels yet. The net effect of the steel tariffs, and most other ones, is that costs were driven up and little was done to spur expanded US capacity. I'm not a protectionist, but I can even by sympathetic to the idea of more US production as a matter of national security...but the execution was horrible. No prep work, no advance warning, no coordination with the industry...just a huge swing tariff. We have competitors in Mexico and Canada that have no such tariffs on steel and aluminum that import their products with no duty into the US and we have to compete against them paying 25% extra on steel, AL, and many other items. It's total BS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5675]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12157
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: You don't think he can win gop nomination? And yeah....
Jun 17, 2022, 7:50 AM
[ in reply to You don't think he can win gop nomination? And yeah.... ] |
|
Let's see how objective you really are. I can agree to some extent about national disgrace, but can you admit that the Russian hoax was in fact a hoax?
Can you admit two impeachments of a President based on lies is a big deal?
Your echo chamber has you convinced that a person Mr. Trump is the worst thing that ever happened, but history will show the precedents of the US Gov't including the FBI doing what they did to Trump is by far worse than a mean tweeter who will be dead in a decade.
Trump will go away but, the corruption and illegal, immoral tactics used by the democrats will live forever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I don't believe you've ever seen me mention Russia...
Jun 19, 2022, 3:21 PM
|
|
and Trump on here, have you? I thought that was a nothing burger from the beginning.
Neither of Trump's impeachment were based on Russia, so I don't see how you are that together.
The 1st Trump impeachment was iffy in my book and I think I said so at the time. I think the dems overplayed their hand in the House. But I do think Trump did hold back aid to Ukraine to pressure Zelenskyy to investigate a political rival.
The 2nd impeachment was more warranted imo.
What were the "lies" in the impeachment? Plenty of reasonable people disagree on the impeachment, but the Zelenskyy call was a verbatim transcript.
And what "echo chamber" are you referring to for me exactly? I'd be willing to bet my reading and listening is a lot more diverse than yours!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [39020]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 51623
Joined: 11/20/04
|
Ah, the Bushes. Makes sense.
Jun 17, 2022, 10:59 PM
[ in reply to that's a major indictment coming from him ] |
|
Globalist scum angry that some segment of one of the two parties they control has been taken back by the people, longing for the days when Republicans and Democrats worked together to undermine the United States and lead us down the path of global communism.
No doubt he'd walk this back if some traitorous imbecile like Liz Cheney was nominated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Striking statement from a very famous Pub judge...
Jun 16, 2022, 6:09 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1515]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1763
Joined: 9/6/20
|
Re: Striking statement from a very famous Pub judge...
Jun 16, 2022, 6:14 PM
|
|
Guess he is a FAKE Pub like you huh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4018]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 8042
Joined: 12/9/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37177
Joined: 11/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12592]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6312
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Re: Striking statement from a very famous Pub judge...
Jun 16, 2022, 7:08 PM
|
|
There is no doubt that Trump tried to subvert the Constitution to remain in power. Zero doubt.
Based on that, I don’t think Trump deserves to become President again.
However, I think Luttig is tarring a lot of decent people when he says Trump supporters are a clear and present danger.
The military is not in the bag for Trump. Had Trump somehow someway remained in power there would have been total chaos and in that setting, I could see the military stepping in not to support Trump but to remove him and set up a transitional government.
We were never near that. This was not even close to being a successful coup. If elected, Trump might try to stay in power, but he would not be successful.
Bringing up 2024 doesn’t seem to be what this committee was supposed to be about. Facts about what followed the election are fair game. Opinions not so much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Striking statement from a very famous Pub judge...
Jun 16, 2022, 7:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1515]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1763
Joined: 9/6/20
|
Re: Striking statement from a very famous Pub judge...
Jun 16, 2022, 7:32 PM
|
|
WRONG, the purpose of the select comm. is to determine exactly what really happened and to (hopefully) enact legislation that will PREVENT this crap from happening again in the future, which includes 2024. The Judge was totally right, there is not even an attempt to hide the intentions of certain people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12592]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6312
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Re: Striking statement from a very famous Pub judge...
Jun 16, 2022, 7:52 PM
|
|
I was disgusted with the post election shenanigans of Trump and very upset by the breaching of the Capitol, but the system held. Judges ruled against Trump’s claims, the election was certified and Trump never had a real shot of staying in power.
However, what legislation do you propose that would have stopped what happened on Jan 6th?
No minds are going to be changed by this committee. Voters in 2022 and 2024 aren’t gonna base their vote on this committee’s findings.
If the Dems want to win, they better run back to the center fast. If Trump wins in 2024, it will be because of their policies. To me that’s more damning than anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Striking statement from a very famous Pub judge...
Jun 16, 2022, 7:57 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1515]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1763
Joined: 9/6/20
|
Re: Striking statement from a very famous Pub judge...
Jun 16, 2022, 8:07 PM
[ in reply to Re: Striking statement from a very famous Pub judge... ] |
|
You say " what legislation do you propose that would have stopped what happened on Jan 6th?". I think the Judge today was alluding to that the electoral count act needed to be updated to eliminate any ambiguities so the last part of what Trump wanted could be avoided. I don't disagree with your last two lines, except that "if trump wins" it just shows how stupid the electorate is. He should not even be allowed to run is my opinion, based on what happened last time. I'll take Desantis any day over Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: Pub judge = fix the electoral count act = smart post !!
Jun 19, 2022, 8:57 PM
|
|
This statement from you (in quotes below) is spot on.
"I think the Judge today was alluding to that the electoral count act needed to be updated to eliminate any ambiguities so the last part of what Trump wanted could be avoided."
This is a great contribution to what really can help 'create unity' in our culture of schism!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11683
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Striking statement from a very famous Pub judge...
Jun 17, 2022, 9:55 AM
[ in reply to Re: Striking statement from a very famous Pub judge... ] |
|
Rons, I'd love to jump back to the GOP. I do not like much if anything the Dems are about and their screeching divisive Wokism - which you don't see much represented on what is a mostly conservative Southern football site - just goes down my spine like fingernails down a chalkboard, and their economic policies appall me.
That said, I completely agree that the actions and attitude of the GOP as constituted represent a "clear and present danger" to democracy in the USA. And if we don't have the power to eject corrupt politicians (which is most of them) when they start self-dealing more and more and grabbing more and more power without accountability for ourselves, at some point we morph into where Hungary and Turkey are now...and then from there descend where Russia is: absolute, toxic, abusive dictatorship, that is a menace to itself and the world, and a dragging force for, well, evil.
The US isn't perfect and there's a laundry list of stuff I'd love to fix. But it can get a WHOLE lot worse, and unless we curb-stomp Trump and those who participated for what they attempted, we remain in danger. They haven't backed off their attempts to derail democracy at all...and the GOP isn't stopping them.
The second that changes, I'm back on Team GOP. But McCarthy and McConnell have absolutely failed to lead the party back off the cliff.
We're in a dangerous moment in time here for the USA. We need to find our way back off the edge before we do anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
USA nearly already off the cliff (endemic DOJ corruption)
Jun 18, 2022, 10:12 PM
|
|
Ya'll are so naive.
The USA is already off the cliff (thanks to G.H.Bush, then B.Clinton, then G.W.Bush, then Obama) due to the gradual corruption of the DOJ into a politically driven prosecutorial organization, followed by the total politicization of the FBI.
The Federal Judiciary (including SCOTUS) is all that's holding us up, and that group is being steadily corrupted into a political organization.
It's the above that is the biggest threat to the USA as we had always known it. The 'DJT is the danger' talk is an ignorant diversion from the growing suspension of civil liberties. "Traditional" Republicans and today's (behaviorally) illiberal Democrats are the biggest threat to the end of our civil liberties.
So many Americans take the casual and popular approach by following their (typically lazy, usually ignorant, and commonly corrupt) media outlets to become mynah birds and repeat the narrative that DJT supporters are stupid and to not give their thoughts and perspectives any credence.
Most of the smart DJT supporters are doing so quietly or anonymously. They don't want to risk being Doxx'd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12592]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6312
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Re: Striking statement from a very famous Pub judge...
Jun 16, 2022, 7:37 PM
[ in reply to Re: Striking statement from a very famous Pub judge... ] |
|
To finish today with Judge Luttig’s opinion on 2024 hurt the credibility of the committee even further.Pelosi never should have dismissed the GOP choices to sit on the committee. For him to speak ill of whomever Trump might endorse as a clear and present danger and Trump supporters too was just his opinion and nothing more.
The purpose of this committee supposedly was to determine the facts behind the events of Jan 6th.
2024 and one judge’s opinion is irrelevant to that purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Striking statement from a very famous Pub judge...
Jun 16, 2022, 7:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1515]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1763
Joined: 9/6/20
|
Re: Striking statement from a very famous Pub judge...
Jun 16, 2022, 7:59 PM
|
|
LOL, you lose credibility when you mention Pelosi (debunked theory) and I tend to despise her. Pubs negotiated the terms of an independent commission and turtle man killed it in the senate. I'm glad people like Gym Jordon (who are likely involved in this scheme) aren't on the committee to clutter up the proceedings with BS. Here is evidence of a guilty conscience ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX4djLBWURk
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Striking statement from a very famous Pub judge...
Jun 16, 2022, 8:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1515]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1763
Joined: 9/6/20
|
Re: Striking statement from a very famous Pub judge...
Jun 16, 2022, 8:22 PM
|
|
Then the INDEPENDENT commission could have looked into that and it wasn't her that was against having that happen. Anyway, something is strange with the Capitol police. They looked at that recent video of those "tourist" going through the Capitol on 1/5, taking pics of the security stations and tunnels etc. and said they did not see a problem with it. I saw the video and that Barry Loud. guy from GA. should be tossed. Obvious recon the day before the attack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1515]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 1763
Joined: 9/6/20
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47750]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30413
Joined: 11/15/99
|
As a judge he should refrain from politics.***
Jun 16, 2022, 7:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34582]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41409
Joined: 4/20/01
|
Please run on that***
Jun 16, 2022, 9:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34582]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41409
Joined: 4/20/01
|
he retired in 2006...no one cares***
Jun 16, 2022, 9:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58411]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46322
Joined: 4/23/00
|
If Dems are so terrified of Trump, then they need to put
Jun 16, 2022, 9:11 PM
|
|
forth some credible, electable candidates to run against Trump and his people, instead of running a bunch of progressives and pushing an agenda that most Americans don't identify or agree with. That should be simple and easy enough, given how obviously bad Trump and his people are. But no, that radical progressive agenda is the whole point, so the strategy is to use these hearings to convince people that Trump is worse than they are. It won't work.
These hearings will change very few minds, if any. In fact, it will only make the divide worse and strengthen opinions on both "sides", no matter what happens to Trump as a result of it all. It won't make a single Pub vote Dem. Nobody out there voted for Trump last time around and will think after this hearing, "You know, Trump is a lot worse than I thought, these Dems are onto something!". Conservative Libertarian types like me who voted for Trump last time, but refuse to vote for him again, sure as hell aren't going to vote for a progressive Dem. I hope we don't ever have another narcissistic ##### like Trump running again, but if we do, there's nothing this committee can do to stop the same thing from playing out again by vilifying Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [487]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 398
Joined: 7/4/11
|
Re: If Dems are so terrified of Trump, then they need to put
Jun 17, 2022, 12:58 AM
|
|
Trump won the 2020 election in a landslide. It was stolen from him . Problem is most of you are too blind, brainwashed or ####### stupid to understand how it was done. What Zuckerberg did with contributions is evidence enough but there was a helluva lot more, half of what is alleged in 2000 miles is enough, covering windows to block people from watching in Philly is enough , keeping poll watchers more than 20 feet from the count is enough, water leaks in Atlanta with subsequent vote deliveries counted by 4 people @ 3 mfing am is enough. Stopping the count in the middle of the night in 4 states is enough. Multiple judges refusing to hear evidence of fraud is enough. & I have no doubt many of you have never heard some of these allegations . Ignorance is not bliss it proceeds tyranny. Wake up .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [487]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 398
Joined: 7/4/11
|
Re: If Dems are so terrified of Trump, then they need to put
Jun 17, 2022, 1:10 AM
|
|
Proceeds wrong, meant to say Precedes tyranny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44042]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32955
Joined: 2/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5675]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12157
Joined: 9/28/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: Statement from G.W.Bush judicial appointee ... yawn
Jun 18, 2022, 9:39 PM
|
|
Michael Luttig was appointed to the Federal judiciary by G.H. ('Daddy') Bush.
Most of the G.H. Bush and G.W. Bush judicial and prosecutorial appointees are deep state guys, and hate DJT as a threat to exposing the systemic corruption of the Department of Justice.
Alberto Gonzalez was one of those unindicted criminals (AG) who (in this case) was appointed by GWB, so no one should be surprised if a Bushy judicial appointee (like the rhyme there?) is biased against DJT ever since DJT ended the Bush family political dynasty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9664]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11414
Joined: 9/10/99
|
If this were a "trial" - the other side could easily march
Jun 20, 2022, 9:03 AM
|
|
several prominent folks with opposing viewpoints.
But this is not a "trial" and there is no other side - so there will be no rebuttal heard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 95
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
