m308gunner | 352 Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 20 minutes ago, Link said: Oh, like the time he said “Russia, if you’re listening...”? Really, you don’t say. Yes I know that was before the election. That was testing the waters, there is no way he backed down from acting like that after facing zero consequence. I’m not impressed by that face to face meeting, given how quickly things fell apart afterwards. What a joke. That is something that would have been shouted to the heavens and back by the Mueller report. To assert that it was "testing the waters" is a bit much, don't you think? I know many on the left don't think much of his intelligence, but telegraphing a serious call like that would be stupidity cubed, and since we're getting a flood of allegations over this one call I can't imagine we'd not be hearing about similar occurrences. I'm not sure what face to face meeting you are referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m308gunner | 352 Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 4 hours ago, Lincoln said: Most people have the wherewithal to not say something like that while being filmed for tv. That clip of him mocking the disabled reporter during the campaign has been going around again. That alone would have cost anyone without a built in cult an election. The idea that he would mock someone like that is atrocious, but to project that image as a world leader is unforgivable. Hand waving away all the bullshit that falls out of his mouth as hilarious or otherwise inconsequential is doing everyone a huge disservice. Democrats have relied on Republicans resigning over character issues for decades while protecting their own. They made Trump, and the electorate has been driven to relying on just such a man. To my knowledge the incident you speak of is, at best, subjective, with examples of Trump using the same gestures to mock other people as well. In my mind it's no worse than characterizing people who vote for Trump as deplorable. No hand waving here. I just don't hold the president (or any president) up as some kind of moral thought leader in any way shape or form. The president is (or should be) a glorified paper pusher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m308gunner | 352 Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 18 hours ago, Tulpa said: By the Republicans' book. The Republicans set up all the rules for impeachment proceedings. The Democrats are simply following it. So any bitching about "closed doors" and "no cross examinations" should be directed to the GOP. I'm not finding a reference to the Republicans setting the rules for the proceedings. What I am finding is that Pelosi appointed the Intelligence committee (and not the Judiciary committee, as per usual) to conduct the closed hearings, under the guise that the Intel committee usually deals with sensitive information and thus HAS to be under tighter security and away from the public eye. To my eye this alone should raise suspicions, but coupled with the fact that choice leaks and off the record remarks have been made (that all run in the same narrative direction) things start to look.... less legitimate. I'm aware that some Republican members of the committee(s) that were supposed to attend have been criticized for NOT attending, but the reports I read did not mention that senators could send surrogates in their places, and if it was the senators or their surrogates that did not attend. That looks a bit fishy too. But yeah, the whole barging in during the meeting was a political ploy, no doubt about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Link | 2,710 Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 (edited) 57 minutes ago, m308gunner said: That is something that would have been shouted to the heavens and back by the Mueller report. I’m sorry... do you think this didn’t happen? I saw it on live TV. 57 minutes ago, m308gunner said: I'm not sure what face to face meeting you are referring to. the one you mentioned in the quote. Sorry to confuse with the bold portion to which the first paragraph referred. 19 hours ago, m308gunner said: And yet not too long after that they were meeting face to face in the demilitarized zone. That is shocking progress, given our history. Edited December 21, 2019 by Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m308gunner | 352 Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Link said: I’m sorry... do you think this didn’t happen? I saw it on live TV. the one you mentioned in the quote. Sorry to confuse with the bold portion to which the first paragraph referred. Ah ok, now I understand. I was not referring to his first "asking Russia for help" remark during his campaign, but addressing your contention (if I'm reading it correctly) that he would have continued that behavior behind closed doors, for which the Mueller Report would have more than likely found evidence for. We shouldn't discount that meeting with Kim, as their negotiating team has recently stated that they wish "the US were more creative" in their negotiations. They keep walking away, we keep walking away, and yet we're back at it. Scott Adams (you may have heard me mention him before :P) has gone so far as to suggest we surrender militarily to North Korea, in exchange for certain provisions that would guarantee they don't further their nuclear program. It's laughable at face value, but get's more interesting the more he explains it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californication | 1,477 Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, m308gunner said: Trump is the executive branch and as such has power over foreign policy. I believe that includes officiating foreign aid. Congress can vote to approve how to spend the money. Not sure who has asserted Trump was acting altruistically (if he's even capable of acting in such a manner). I understand that to say he doesn't care about anything is an oversimplification in order to claim faults in his character, but we don't have to resort to that. We know largely who he is, though the left (and media) have clearly overplayed their hand at the beginning by claiming he's orange Hitler. The histrionics/outrage need to stop or, as we are seeing played out in real time, people will just stop caring. If he did not trust the government (and he seems to have ample reason not to, but lets wait for the Durham report) it only makes sense he would use people he trusts and keep clouding the truth. I recently saw an interview with Giuliani that suggests there is much more to the "crazy conspiracy theories" than we had previously thought. And why do the Democrats keep parroting that phrase when there hasn't been an official report to debunk these theories? If the Bidens are called, and there is something there then what? I don't think you understand how the government works. The president makes suggestions on a budget. Congress votes on the budget and then decides how many is spent, and they appropriate money to the things they want to spend money on. The justice department begins investigations into criminal acts as far as I know. The president does not hire people outside of the government to investigate criminal behavior on behalf of the government. If you can't understand these two very basic point then you have no understanding of what is going on. Edited December 22, 2019 by Californication Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Link | 2,710 Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 11 minutes ago, m308gunner said: I was not referring to his first "asking Russia for help" remark during his campaign, but addressing your contention (if I'm reading it correctly) that he would have continued that behavior behind closed doors, for which the Mueller Report would have more than likely found evidence for. You weren’t referring to it. I was. You said it’s almost like he’s talking to the other countries, like he’s not talking to the American people at all. So I pointed out an instance when he did explicitly exactly that. Nothing to do with closed doors, and if there is a chance he might be speaking to the American people (which there must be, if you are explaining it is not the case) then it wouldn’t be behind closed doors. But as long as you bring it up, of course he does that. He meets with Putin with no other officials or journalists present. People try to get interpreters’ notes and they can’t. He waves around the most beautiful letter from Jong-un, won’t let anybody see it. I’m not even saying it’s wrong, I’m just saying he does it. He doesn’t deny it at all, so why do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulpa | 3,494 Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 58 minutes ago, m308gunner said: I'm not finding a reference to the Republicans setting the rules for the proceedings. What I am finding is that Pelosi appointed the Intelligence committee (and not the Judiciary committee, as per usual) to conduct the closed hearings, under the guise that the Intel committee usually deals with sensitive information and thus HAS to be under tighter security and away from the public eye. To my eye this alone should raise suspicions, but coupled with the fact that choice leaks and off the record remarks have been made (that all run in the same narrative direction) things start to look.... less legitimate. It's the same rules the Republicans used for Fast and Furious and the Benghazi hearings. The Democrats did that deliberately so the Republicans wouldn't accuse them of changing the rules. And yes, it would be the Intelligence Committee, as this incident involved a foreign power. There's nothing nefarious about it, and again, Republicans were present. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m308gunner | 352 Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 46 minutes ago, Californication said: I don't think you understand how the government works. The president makes suggestions on a budget. Congress votes on the budget and then decides how many is spent, and they appropriate money to the things they want to spend money on. The justice department begins investigations into criminal acts as far as I know. The president does not hire people outside of the government to investigate criminal behavior on behalf of the government. If you can't understand these two very basic point then you have no understanding of what is going on. Trump cut foreign aid to Pakistan, and so that would seem to suggest he can do the same elsewhere. Congress does indeed sign off on spending and directs it's allocation, but the president can alter those plans. If Trump is interested in what he believes to be criminal activity in a foreign country that he also believes is rife with corruption, and he feels he cannot trust the usual channels, then I guess he can and would ask someone he trusts to look into it (Giuliani). The fact that I loosely described my understanding of governmental branch responsibilities does not mean I am out of my depth in other areas related to the topic at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulpa | 3,494 Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 14 minutes ago, m308gunner said: If Trump is interested in what he believes to be criminal activity in a foreign country that he also believes is rife with corruption, and he feels he cannot trust the usual channels, then I guess he can and would ask someone he trusts to look into it (Giuliani). So wait, the entire state department can't be trusted, so he asks his personal lawyer to look into a state department issue? Are we that far gone, that the state department, of which the president appoints most of the directors and then oversees, can't be trusted by our own president? So he sends in someone who probably doesn't have clearance or secure communications? Even if this wasn't a personal political matter (which it turns out it was)? You do see how insane that situation is, and that just letting the president do what he pleases in this case is not acceptable, correct? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m308gunner | 352 Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Link said: You weren’t referring to it. I was. You said it’s almost like he’s talking to the other countries, like he’s not talking to the American people at all. So I pointed out an instance when he did explicitly exactly that. Nothing to do with closed doors, and if there is a chance he might be speaking to the American people (which there must be, if you are explaining it is not the case) then it wouldn’t be behind closed doors. But as long as you bring it up, of course he does that. He meets with Putin with no other officials or journalists present. People try to get interpreters’ notes and they can’t. He waves around the most beautiful letter from Jong-un, won’t let anybody see it. I’m not even saying it’s wrong, I’m just saying he does it. He doesn’t deny it at all, so why do you? It looks like we're speaking past each other on this issue. I did not mean to infer that Trump only ever speaks to one audience and only one audience (be that the crowd in front of him or the foreign entities watching on TV), nor that he is above trolling the Democrats and media like he did with his call out to Russia (and China not too long ago). Those public statements can't be interpreted as legitimate calls to action unless you want to deliberately ignore the context and his love of trolling. When two world leaders whose countries are in a strained relationship meet I wouldn't be surprised at all if there are no transcripts, given the most likely sensitive nature of the conversation. Same with a letter, though that's got a more theatrical flavor to it. And I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that I deny he keeps some meetings "close to the vest", as it were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m308gunner | 352 Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Tulpa said: It's the same rules the Republicans used for Fast and Furious and the Benghazi hearings. The Democrats did that deliberately so the Republicans wouldn't accuse them of changing the rules. And yes, it would be the Intelligence Committee, as this incident involved a foreign power. There's nothing nefarious about it, and again, Republicans were present. Ah, thank you for the clarification and context. That brings events into focus. Though if the Democrats were truly concerned about appearing fair I'm not sure they could have chosen a worse tactic, given the gravity of an impeachment and stream of leaks that all pointed in the same direction. But as you said, it did involve a foreign entity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m308gunner | 352 Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 36 minutes ago, Tulpa said: So wait, the entire state department can't be trusted, so he asks his personal lawyer to look into a state department issue? Are we that far gone, that the state department, of which the president appoints most of the directors and then oversees, can't be trusted by our own president? So he sends in someone who probably doesn't have clearance or secure communications? Even if this wasn't a personal political matter (which it turns out it was)? You do see how insane that situation is, and that just letting the president do what he pleases in this case is not acceptable, correct? Trump apparently sent Giuliani to the Ukraine to look into the issue. I'm not making a value judgement on whether it was wise/legal or not, just stating what seems to be going on. I wouldn't characterize this situation as more insane than the last two years, honestly. And as I've stated before, whether or not this was a personal matter to him doesn't really concern me as long as it's also in our national best interest, which it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Link | 2,710 Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 58 minutes ago, m308gunner said: It looks like we're speaking past each other on this issue. I did not mean to infer that Trump only ever speaks to one audience and only one audience I guess so. I didn’t think you meant that, nor was it my contention (in the first place) that he would something-something behind closed doors. I don’t know where that concept came into this discussion. That you felt it needed addressing sounds like you have a disagreement with it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincoln | 230 Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 10 minutes ago, m308gunner said: Trump apparently sent Giuliani to the Ukraine to look into the issue. I'm not making a value judgement on whether it was wise/legal or not, just stating what seems to be going on. I wouldn't characterize this situation as more insane than the last two years, honestly. And as I've stated before, whether or not this was a personal matter to him doesn't really concern me as long as it's also in our national best interest, which it is. Trump sent Rudy to do the strongarm work off the books. Sending a personal representative to conduct state business would be a major issue. The closed hearings were necessary to keep early witnesses from huddling up and fabricating a passable story. If the next guy doesn't know what like the last guy told, they can't cover up so easily. I appreciate your willingness to engage but at this point it seems like your posts amount to excusing problematic behavior, coming up with unlikely potential scenarios that dont consider the reality of the situation, and making broad accusations against the Democrats. Alot of the phrases you use read right off the Fox News playbook. Things like "people have been out for Trump since the beginning" and the whistle blower being associated with the Dems. As if those are somehow unreasonable positions or detract from the merits of the evidence against Trump. Not trusting media sources is another one. "Don't believe what you see and hear, listen to me" says Trump. That's some 1984 shit. At this point I don't see how there's anything that will convince you off your points so I'm probably gonna have to dip out of this thread. I would encourage you to keep and open mind though and think critically about anything you read or watch. I know right wing media is garbage but I also know there's a lot of crap from the left leaning sources too. Try to find the good stuff, it's out there. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Link | 2,710 Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tulpa said: So wait, the entire state department can't be trusted, so he asks his personal lawyer to look into a state department issue? Are we that far gone, that the state department, of which the president appoints most of the directors and then oversees, can't be trusted by our own president? So he sends in someone who probably doesn't have clearance or secure communications? Even if this wasn't a personal political matter (which it turns out it was)? This is standard M.O. for him. He fires agency heads for his personal feelings. He asks Putin a yes or no question and believes the answer contrary to all US intelligence. Acting in our national interest, indeed. Edited December 22, 2019 by Link 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sign Collector Guy | 334 Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 (edited) This post reminded me of this sweet thrift find recently. Maybe it belongs in the finders keepers. Not sure. Video below the picture. B2E08FEA-78C7-45F2-9DE8-7D9E4751E175.MOV Edited December 22, 2019 by Sign Collector Guy 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m308gunner | 352 Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 13 hours ago, Lincoln said: Trump sent Rudy to do the strongarm work off the books. Sending a personal representative to conduct state business would be a major issue. The closed hearings were necessary to keep early witnesses from huddling up and fabricating a passable story. If the next guy doesn't know what like the last guy told, they can't cover up so easily. I appreciate your willingness to engage but at this point it seems like your posts amount to excusing problematic behavior, coming up with unlikely potential scenarios that dont consider the reality of the situation, and making broad accusations against the Democrats. Alot of the phrases you use read right off the Fox News playbook. Things like "people have been out for Trump since the beginning" and the whistle blower being associated with the Dems. As if those are somehow unreasonable positions or detract from the merits of the evidence against Trump. Not trusting media sources is another one. "Don't believe what you see and hear, listen to me" says Trump. That's some 1984 shit. At this point I don't see how there's anything that will convince you off your points so I'm probably gonna have to dip out of this thread. I would encourage you to keep and open mind though and think critically about anything you read or watch. I know right wing media is garbage but I also know there's a lot of crap from the left leaning sources too. Try to find the good stuff, it's out there. I'm sorry you feel that way, and question your interpretation of my posts, but wish you well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodysGameRoom | 2,008 Posted December 23, 2019 Author Share Posted December 23, 2019 On 12/20/2019 at 10:08 PM, m308gunner said: I believe the actual quote goes something like "And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Whatever you want. Grab them by the pussy, you can do anything." Which, in the context of celebrities, is almost meaningless in it's statement of the obvious, as there are men and women who will let famous people do almost anything to them. Hell, groupies have existed forever. Sorry but you lost your credibility with me here. Being a celebrity doesn't make it ok to be a sexist asshole. Being a celebrity doesn't make it ok to sexually assault people and or joke about sexually assaulting people. To insinuate that the women Trump sexually assaulted are groupies is disgusting and it's really hard to take everything else you are saying seriously when you spout off garbage like this. It's not meaningless. It's disgusting, repugnant, and indicative of the character of our President. And it's just ONE of about ten thousand disgusting things he has said or done. And defending the quote or trying to imagine some bullshit context where it becomes ok is just about as disgusting as saying it. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arch_8ngel | 1,597 Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, CodysGameRoom said: Sorry but you lost your credibility with me here. Being a celebrity doesn't make it ok to be a sexist asshole. Being a celebrity doesn't make it ok to sexually assault people and or joke about sexually assaulting people. To insinuate that the women Trump sexually assaulted are groupies is disgusting and it's really hard to take everything else you are saying seriously when you spout off garbage like this. It's not meaningless. It's disgusting, repugnant, and indicative of the character of our President. And it's just ONE of about ten thousand disgusting things he has said or done. And defending the quote or trying to imagine some bullshit context where it becomes ok is just about as disgusting as saying it. B..b..b..but her emails! (Not that I think Hillary should have been president, as it was shitty options all around last time.) But the constant refrain that impeaching Trump is somehow "reversing" an election from 3 years ago, rather than dealing with an in-office history of bad-action is absurd. Couple the known bad action with the fact that a fairly large pool of people close to him have been arrested and/or jailed due to misconduct while he was in office -- at a minimum suggesting he has terrible judgment in who he keeps company with, and more likely suggesting they were doing illegal things at his request -- and it is pretty clear the guy is unfit for the job at this point. Edited December 23, 2019 by arch_8ngel 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m308gunner | 352 Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 2 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said: Sorry but you lost your credibility with me here. Being a celebrity doesn't make it ok to be a sexist asshole. Being a celebrity doesn't make it ok to sexually assault people and or joke about sexually assaulting people. To insinuate that the women Trump sexually assaulted are groupies is disgusting and it's really hard to take everything else you are saying seriously when you spout off garbage like this. It's not meaningless. It's disgusting, repugnant, and indicative of the character of our President. And it's just ONE of about ten thousand disgusting things he has said or done. And defending the quote or trying to imagine some bullshit context where it becomes ok is just about as disgusting as saying it. Please read my post again and tell me where I condoned anything about the situation. And the "meaningless" was meant to highlight how obvious and moot it is to feel the need to say that there are and have been people who worship celebrities and who can and do allow said celebrities to have their way with them. It is so common knowledge and unsurprising that in the context of Trump's quote one's natural reaction should be "well no duh. Yeah women like that do exist". So if your trying to ignore all my previous posts by misinterpreting one of them and playing the outrage card I suppose that is your prerogative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m308gunner | 352 Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 49 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said: B..b..b..but her emails! (Not that I think Hillary should have been president, as it was shitty options all around last time.) But the constant refrain that impeaching Trump is somehow "reversing" an election from 3 years ago, rather than dealing with an in-office history of bad-action is absurd. Couple the known bad action with the fact that a fairly large pool of people close to him have been arrested and/or jailed due to misconduct while he was in office -- at a minimum suggesting he has terrible judgment in who he keeps company with, and more likely suggesting they were doing illegal things at his request -- and it is pretty clear the guy is unfit for the job at this point. If not for the constant refrain from democrats and media for impeachment/outrage dating from before his inauguration I would be more inclined to agree that the Democrats are not still motivated by the butt hurt of 2016. I'd like to address the other points but my wife it standing at the door, baby in hand, waiting to go to a family Christmas party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodysGameRoom | 2,008 Posted December 23, 2019 Author Share Posted December 23, 2019 7 minutes ago, m308gunner said: Please read my post again and tell me where I condoned anything about the situation. And the "meaningless" was meant to highlight how obvious and moot it is to feel the need to say that there are and have been people who worship celebrities and who can and do allow said celebrities to have their way with them. It is so common knowledge and unsurprising that in the context of Trump's quote one's natural reaction should be "well no duh. Yeah women like that do exist". So if your trying to ignore all my previous posts by misinterpreting one of them and playing the outrage card I suppose that is your prerogative. You deny that the post is an attempt to justify the quote? Because that's exactly what it is. You are trying to justify why it's ok that he said that. There is no justification that can make him saying that ok. There is no context that can make it ok. It's awful. It's not playing the outrage card if what you said is outrageous. And yes, when considering someone's opinions, I'll take into account what I know about the person. And if they tend to make ridiculous statements, it hurts the credibility of everything they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulpa | 3,494 Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, m308gunner said: And the "meaningless" was meant to highlight how obvious and moot it is to feel the need to say that there are and have been people who worship celebrities and who can and do allow said celebrities to have their way with them. It is so common knowledge and unsurprising that in the context of Trump's quote one's natural reaction should be "well no duh. Yeah women like that do exist". You don't know that that's what those women were like. Not every woman (or person in an inferior position) feels that they can speak out against someone in authority, such as a celebrity or "star" in Trump's words. Many assault and rape victims don't immediately fight back, leading to comments like "well, she must have wanted it." Which is an absolutely disgusting and morally repugnant stance called victim blaming. Please don't do that. Edited December 23, 2019 by Tulpa 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arch_8ngel | 1,597 Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 (edited) 57 minutes ago, m308gunner said: If not for the constant refrain from democrats and media for impeachment/outrage dating from before his inauguration I would be more inclined to agree that the Democrats are not still motivated by the butt hurt of 2016. I would be interested to see your take on Trump's judgment as president related to the fairly significant pool of people around him that have (1) been arrested and gone to jail (2) are otherwise under investigation for campaign related crimes. Oh wait... "those were just process crimes, and they were tricked by the FBI during an investigation that never should have happened", right? EDIT: also as a separate point (that I don't want to wade back through to find the relevant quote) -- I don't think anyone should be remotely impressed that he has had face-to-face meetings with dictators. Any US president at pretty much any time could get a meeting like that. The reason they haven't in the past is because it is perceived as legitimizing the dictators, where the dictator doesn't need anything to come from the meeting except a photo op to use as propaganda. Maybe choosing to take those meetings ultimately turns out to be helpful, maybe it doesn't. But there was no "master negotiator" abilities in play to get the meetings -- it was almost certainly as simple as just asking for them. Edited December 23, 2019 by arch_8ngel 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts