patrick.net

Onvacation says

What is the next worse thing Trump has done?

There are lots of reasons I dont like Trump related to his leadership style and rhetoric.

My overriding distaste for him is the tendency to appoint/promote/support individuals due to their loyalty to him, rather than their competence, and then drop support for them and attack/undermine them if they stop being loyal to him. I think that's a slippery slope towards authoritarian leadership. His treatment of Pence is a good example of this. So on the whole thats one major beef I have, and it is probably the 2nd worst thing.

The Zelensky / Ukraine extortion to drive an investigation of his political rival was pretty bad and he got impeached for it, but I'd say its down the list of worst things in my opinion.

If Biden did stuff like that (like if he twisted arms for the FBI to investigate Trump when they independently didnt intend to), I'd vote for someone else, with the exception if he was running against Trump again, since Trump definitely did it.

Of course, I live in california, so my vote for president doesnt really matter.

DeficitHawk says

The Zelensky / Ukraine extortion to drive an investigation of his political rival was pretty bad and he got impeached for it, but I'd say its down the list of worst things in my opinion.

You're talking about the biden corruption here, nothing to do with Trump

DeficitHawk says

"you are so transparent in your whining babylike efforts to overturn this election... you dont get to challenge the constitutionality of a bill you had no problem when you win, but only challenge AFTER THE FACT when you loose..."

Actually I should correct my own paraphrase.. I dont think this ruling prevents the plaintiffs from challenging the constitutionally of the bill, but just prevents them from throwing out the ballets of the election already held as a remedy.

Maybe someone with more legal knowledge than me can clarify.

DeficitHawk says

Onvacation says

What is the next worse thing Trump has done?

There are lots of reasons I dont like Trump related to his leadership style and rhetoric.

My overriding distaste for him is the tendency to appoint/promote/support individuals due to their loyalty to him, rather than their competence, and then drop support for them and attack/undermine them if they stop being loyal to him. I think that's a slippery slope towards authoritarian leadership. His treatment of Pence is a good example of this. So on the whole thats one major beef I have, and it is probably the 2nd worst thing.

The Zelensky / Ukraine extortion to drive an investigation of his political rival was pretty bad and he got impeached for it, but I'd say its down the list of worst things in my opinion.

If Biden did stuff like that (like if he twisted arms for the FBI to investigate Trump whe...

This I find pretty funny in that nobody is above the law. My question is should Biden be investigated / prosecuted now? Certainly there is evidence that Trump was right about Ukraine and so much more. And then should Biden be doing the same to Trump now? He is.

mell says

You're talking about the biden corruption here, nothing to do with Trump

No, was Trump who interfered with the disbursement of funds with the intent of triggering an investigation of his political rival.

That would be like if Biden called the FBI and said "We're shutting down the FBI's funding unless you raid Mar a Lago"

I dont think Biden did this... but if he did, I'd think it was very wrong.

keeprubbersidedown says

Certainly there is evidence that Trump was right about Ukraine and so much more

Share it then. Facts and evidence of crimes, not speculation please.

keeprubbersidedown says

And then should Biden be doing the same to Trump now? He is.

It would concern me greatly if he was as I mentioned above, but I have seen no evidence for this.. Please share facts and evidence. Not speculation.

DeficitHawk says

My overriding distaste for him is the tendency to appoint/promote/support individuals due to their loyalty to him, rather than their competence,

Do you think a woman that slept her way to the top, that lied about being black, put Jamal Trulove into prison for a murder he didn't commit, put pot smokers into jail, and is a pot smoker herself was picked as VP due to competence, or loyalty?

She knows she'd never be in that position if she wasn't absolutely loyal. You know it too.

Onvacation says

It's good that you are digging down into the "facts". Many who claim to be Democrats or progressives eventually leave this site because the cognitive dissonance is too great.

I wanted to follow up on this comment. I've seen this sentiment expressed by a few people on this site, and I dont agree with it. Actually I have a much lower opinion of the level of intellectual honesty happening on this site than you do.

First... its not democrats you cant find... its anyone who grounds themselves on facts and tries to debate from them, rather than hinging debate on speculation and tribal beliefs. There are not many moderates from either party. This site is dominated by a particular cross section of of the right wing who conform to a specific tribal belief system, and bounce largely conforming opinions around in this echo chamber. All while claiming the high-ground of 'independent thought' and maintaining such an opinion of themselves... Talk about cognitive dissonance! Actually all you are doing is comparing facts, information, and analysis against the narrative construct of your tribe and attacking anything that doesnt match!

I know I was criticized for making monty python references above.... but, still, the mantra of this echo chamber is: "Yes, we are all individuals!" but actually the level of conformity in tribal beliefs here is ASTOUNDING!.

Tribalism is not a compliment. Left and Right both have this tendency.

For example, above, we debated on a 3 court cases that were highly controversial. There is absolutely a tribal belief system at work on both sides of this.

Lefty tribe members think:
1) Floyd (Jury was RIGHT)
2) Rittenhouse (Jury was WRONG)
3) Arbury (Jury was RIGHT)

Right winger tribe members think:
1) Floyd (Jury was WRONG)
2) Rittenhouse (Jury was RIGHT)
3) Arbury (Jury was WRONG)

There are 3 cases here, with 2 outcomes possible for each... thats 8 possible opinion sets. But the two tribes simplify into only 2 opinion sets.

Is there anyone here on this site (besides myself) that does not fall neatly within one tribe or the other with respect to these three cases?

DeficitHawk says

No, was Trump who interfered with the disbursement of funds with the intent of triggering an investigation of his political rival.

Trump was asking about Biden extorting Ukraine as Biden himself recounted here:

original link

Do you think Biden should be investigated for this obvious extortion?

DeficitHawk says

(besides myself)

And since we have you here, what is your opinion of Hunter Biden's laptop?

DeficitHawk says

mell says

You're talking about the biden corruption here, nothing to do with Trump

No, was Trump who interfered with the disbursement of funds with the intent of triggering an investigation of his political rival.

That would be like if Biden called the FBI and said "We're shutting down the FBI's funding unless you raid Mar a Lago"

I dont think Biden did this... but if he did, I'd think it was very wrong.

Your not serious right.... Have you heard of Hunter laptop? Burisma? Bobulinski?

Biden withheld funds to force the oust of a person who was looking into corruption.

keeprubbersidedown says

Your not serious right.... Have you heard of Hunter laptop? Burisma? Bobulinski?

If you have facts and evidence that establish a crime, I'd gladly look at it and offer an opinion.

Names of controversies are not facts or crimes.

Onvacation says

DeficitHawk says

(besides myself)

Ovacation, I do want an answer to my question. Maybe you can say for yourself, why do you think that so many people fall into one of two tribes with their opinions on these cases? Do you?DeficitHawk says

Lefty tribe members think:
1) Floyd (Jury was RIGHT)
2) Rittenhouse (Jury was WRONG)
3) Arbury (Jury was RIGHT)

Right winger tribe members think:
1) Floyd (Jury was WRONG)
2) Rittenhouse (Jury was RIGHT)
3) Arbury (Jury was WRONG)

There are 3 cases here, with 2 outcomes possible for each... thats 8 possible opinion sets. But the two tribes simplify into only 2 opinion sets.

Do you agree that tribalism is at work here? or maybe you only think tribalism affects others, but certainly not your tribe?

DeficitHawk says

keeprubbersidedown says

Your not serious right.... Have you heard of Hunter laptop? Burisma? Bobulinski?

If you have facts and evidence that establish a crime, I'd gladly look at it and offer an opinion.

Names of controversies are not facts or crimes.

Those are facts and evidence that cannot get any clearer! Including a star witness who can corroborate and prove everything. But corrupt leftoid government simply isn't prosecuting itself, only its political enemies.

mell says

Those are facts and evidence that cannot get any clearer!

Really? He just literally typed "Burisma". That's not evidence of a crime.

I think the pres has a druggie son... I bet you could find some evidence that his druggie son committed some crimes related to drugs along with other indiscretions. And thats a pretty good reason not to elect his son.

But what is the criminal allegation against the president? Just saying the name of a controversy is not the same thing as providing evidence of a crime. It reminds me of 'Benghazi'... what was the crime there either? Like I said, if you show me evidence of a crime, I'll look at it and give you my opinion. But don't just handwave and say the names of controversies.

DeficitHawk says

But what is the criminal allegation against the president?

Joe Biden is on video stating he would with-hold funds from Ukraine unless Victor Solkin, who was investigating Burisma, who his son was on the BOD of Burisma of, was fired.

Why?

Trump went through an impeachment for ASKING about that.

Here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG0nAT9xOHk

It's right in front of you, but our "news" media ignores it. This is because our "news" media is propaganda. We don't have a free press.

The allegation is that his crack head fuck up son was on the BOD of Burisma, in order to funnel funds to Biden, that his crackhead fuck son was just a conduit for bribes, which seems quite probable given that a CRACKHEAD that had no fucking experience in energy was "working" for Burisma after the United States overthrew Ukraine in 2014.

But investigations into this, leads to impeachment of our president. Can't talk about it, and our "news" won't mention it.

DeficitHawk says

why do you think that so many people fall into one of two tribes with their opinions on these cases?

Why do you want to classify people? And why don't you think you fit in either of your categories?

Like I said before, I don't think any of those three cases should have went to trial.

You have layed out the basis of your philosophy with your "people fall into one of two tribes" statement.

I am neither lefty or right wing. Just like you.

I reject the premise of your question.

DeficitHawk says

It reminds me of 'Benghazi'

Did you vote for Hillary?

Onvacation says

Did you vote for Hillary?

Yes.

I'm not sure we've been introduced. I'm the democrat referenced in the thread title, here willing to debate. I have voted for the democratic presidential candidate in every contest since (and including) Al Gore.

In truth, I am a moderate democrat, I tend to vote democrat but will split tickets. I have voted for democrats for president in all recent elections, but that is not true for all state and local elections. I am not registered with either party. I would consider voting for a moderate republican presidential candidate, but have never done so.

cisTits says

Bullshit. THAT was the reason they gave.

They passed a law allowing mail in ballots with republican majority.... then they had an election with mail in ballots... no one complained. Then they had a second election, where the republicans didnt like the outcome... then and only then did the republicans come an challenge the law that they had passed themselves, and requested to THROW OUT THE ELCTION RESULT where they had lost as a remedy!

Its outrageous! The court, rightfully, said 'Piss off'.

They were only challenging the law and asking for this remedy because they lost the election. The 'timing' is referring to this prejudicial timing of bringing the case only after the election is lost, with an ask to overturn the election. Its the legal principle of laches... You cant wait for the outcome of the election, and then if you lose challenge the principles of the election and ask to alter the result! The intentionally delayed timing of the motion makes it clear they are trying to manipulate the process to achieve a preferred outcome of the election. They were rightfully called out on this, and the case was thrown out WITH PREJUDICE . (I.e. court really was offended that the case was brought, and gave them an extra FU preventing them from trying to bring another case like it)

Court was right here. US supreme court also declined to intervene or overturn, rightfully.

DeficitHawk says

mell says

Those are facts and evidence that cannot get any clearer!

Really? He just literally typed "Burisma". That's not evidence of a crime.

I think the pres has a druggie son... I bet you could find some evidence that his druggie son committed some crimes related to drugs along with other indiscretions. And thats a pretty good reason not to elect his son.

But what is the criminal allegation against the president? Just saying the name of a controversy is not the same thing as providing evidence of a crime. It reminds me of 'Benghazi'... what was the crime there either? Like I said, if you show me evidence of a crime, I'll look at it and give you my opinion. But don't just handwave and say the names of controversies.

You really can’t be serious. In Benghazi people died number 1 and govt incompetence had a lot to do with it.

There is plenty of evidence which you brushed aside as controversies like “Benghazi”…. Let me ask you, should house republicans investigate Joe Biden and his crooked dealings?

DeficitHawk says

In truth, I am a moderate democrat

So why didn't you vote for Trump? His policies were left of center generally. Don't say it was because his personality. Everything he did for the most part made Democrats lives better while they bitched about it the whole way.

Hilary only won the popular (which doesn't matter) because of CA, NY and IL. She would have started a new war. She would have shoved green BS down our throats. Would have appointed crazy people to SCOTUS that were qualifies based on their skin color and not merit just to check a box that she's better Democrat. I voted for Obama in '08 (McCain was a loser). Anyone that witnessed those 4 years should NEVER have voted for him again. Hurts to say, but Romney would have been better in '12. It took all of two years for Trump to amp up Obama's shit economy of 8 years. Biden has destroyed it and more in even faster time.

Also your vote locally doesn't matter to me. I likely don't live in your state so who cares? Local and state elections tend to be less partisan, they just have to pick a party as independents and other parties just don't get the attention on the ballot. So voting a straight D or R ballot wouldn't make sense anyway.

DeficitHawk says

Like I said, if you show me evidence of a crime, I'll look at it and give you my opinion. But don't just handwave and say the names of controversies.

OK
The Hunter laptop shows evidence that Hunter was trading on his fathers name and Joe, the big guy, was getting a cut of the action.

What do you think about that?

Onvacation says

DeficitHawk says

It reminds me of 'Benghazi'

Did you vote for Hillary?

You voted for a woman that is most responsible for returning slavery to Libya.

Either you are profoundly ignorant, or you have very low morality.

richwicks says

Either you are profoundly ignorant, or you have very low morality.

Stupid people are offended at being called ignorant.

But DeficitHawk is not stupid.

It is sad that we fought Ho Chi Minh and Muammar Gaddafi. The world would be a better place had we never.

DeficitHawk says

They passed a law allowing mail in ballots with republican majority.... then they had an election with mail in ballots... no one complained.

What state is this? What LAW is this? Name the bill. I think you're full of it.

richwicks says

What state is this? What LAW is this? Name the bill.

Pennsylvania Act 77, passed in 2019. Details here:

https://thisislowermerion.com/11-pa-republicans-who-voted-for-act-77-have-filed-suit-claiming-it-violates-state-constitution/

When ACT 77 passed in 2019, it was the result of a compromise between Republicans and Democrats. In addition to enabling “No-Fault” Mail-in voting in Pennsylvania (what Democrats got in the compromise), ACT 77 also did away with straight-party voting (what Republicans got in the compromise).

Clever! The Republicans tricked the Democrats into voting for their ticket-splitting bill by sweetening it with an unconstitutional provision that the Democrats liked. Tricky I say but not at all hypocritical when they tried to invalidate that provision. They always opposed no-excuse mail-in ballots.

Undoctored says

richwicks says

What state is this? What LAW is this? Name the bill.

Pennsylvania Act 77, passed in 2019. Details here:

https://thisislowermerion.com/11-pa-republicans-who-voted-for-act-77-have-filed-suit-claiming-it-violates-state-constitution/

Help me find the law:

https://thisislowermerion.com/11-pa-republicans-who-voted-for-act-77-have-filed-suit-claiming-it-violates-state-constitution/

I don't care what other people say about something. I need to read the law itself and see who voted how. Where is that?

Here’s more on the subject. The law wasn’t really unconstitutional, it’s more that certain governmental agents acted unconstitutionally in its name, says Republican Senator Mastriano, who voted for it.

https://fcfreepresspa.com/how-pennsylvania-democrats-hijacked-act-77/

When the Senate passed Act 77, critical election security safeguards were in place to prevent mass fraud. All mail-in ballots were to be signature verified and turned in by Election Day to count. “Defective” absentee mail-in ballots were not to be counted and poll watchers were expected to be permitted to observe the counting of all mail-in ballots at every location.

However, using the pretext of COVID, Pennsylvania Democrats made their move to hijack Act 77 and transform it into something NO Republican voted for.

The Democrat majority Supreme Court, Governor Wolf, and Wolf’s disgraced Secretary of State Boockvar unconstitutionally rewrote Act 77.

richwicks says

I need to read the law itself and see who voted how. Where is that?

Law itself:

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/li/uconsCheck.cfm?yr=2019&sessInd=0&act=77

Who voted how:

Senate:

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/RC/Public/rc_view_action2.cfm?sess_yr=2019&sess_ind=0&rc_body=S&rc_nbr=180

House (final roll call):

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/RC/Public/rc_view_action2.cfm?sess_yr=2019&sess_ind=0&rc_body=H&rc_nbr=770

cisTits says

Timing thing was 100% procedural, too. Always is.

OK, I'll agree not to get into a semantics debate over whether the case should be considered procedural or sustantive. We have a different opinion on this, but in the end it is a semantics debate and doesn't matter.

The point is, either way, the plaintiffs don't get to throw out the ballots or overthrow the election as a remedy. They have no legal right to do so. So, no matter what some future determination on constitutionality of no excuse absentee ballots, the ballots cast for the two elections where they were used must be counted and the election results stand.

That is what the supreme court said. And it should surprise no reasonable person that they did!

Onvacation says

The Hunter laptop shows evidence that Hunter was trading on his fathers name and Joe, the big guy, was getting a cut of the action.

I am not up to speed, so I have to ask you to do the work here. Please link the specific data/facts/evidence, and the specific crime alleged.

keeprubbersidedown says

You really can’t be serious. In Benghazi people died number 1 and govt incompetence had a lot to do with it.

Oh yes, certainly people died. Questioning whether the security detail was appropriate or not is totally valid. If you think people were making bad judgements about how to run security, that's a good reason to want someone else to be making those decisions. of course hindsight is 20/20, and decisions reviewed in light of bad outcomes can always be cast as bad decisions even if the information available at the time may be more grey.

BUT, the discussion around Benghazi was NOT about questioning judgement on security details, who made those decisions, what information was available, etc.... it was an accusation and conspiracy that a crime had been committed.... "Lock Her Up", etc.

But bad judgement, even incompetence, is not a crime! we would have LOTS of locked up representatives if it was! Nor is it clear to me who made those decisions, how, and if they were good or bad decisions given the information they had at the time (not the hindsight information).

So, again, I AM serious. What is the crime that was alleged that led to "Lock Her Up?"

DeficitHawk says

BUT, the discussion around Benghazi was NOT about questioning judgement on security details, who made those decisions, what information was available, etc.... it was an accusation and conspiracy that a crime had been committed.... "Lock Her Up", etc.

They lied to the American public and the families of those that died after the fact when they knew what was happening the whole time. So no, hindsight is not 20/20, they knew it in the moment. It's involuntary manslaughter all day.

I just don't know if that charge applies to our diplomats overseas dying, but at bare minimum she should have been fired. Another failure by Obama. You cannot deny that Clinton was never held accountable for something she was overseeing in the case of Benghazi. It was her fault and her fault alone. She had maybe 15-20 Ambassadors in harms way around the globe at any time, and the rest were it countries considered safe. She dropped the ball on that and proceeded to lie about what happened, yet kept her job.

Lock her up might be hyperbolic, but to some extent it's true, she probably should have been charged at least. A firing would have confirmed that, and Obama knew she was going to run. So nothing came of it beside a few hearings in Congress which is basically a 8 year olds pillow fight at a sleep over.

DeficitHawk says

But bad judgement, even incompetence, is not a crime!

dude they cover up every single thing with incompetence because its not illegal. those people aren’t stupid. ive seen that excuse every year now.

they even outright lied, “it was a video that sent muslims into riot”… which we found out was pure made up bullshit for the gullible.

DeficitHawk says

I am not up to speed

A lot of people are willfully ignorant about Hunter's laptop and the Biden family corruption. You should look it up, if you actually care about America.

It’s remarkable how they went from

a.) if you take this vaccine, you will not get the disease

TO

b.) I contracted covid, my heart stopped and I’ve had multiple surgeries. However, I’m thankful for all the many vaccines because it would have been much worse if I was unvaccinated

Hey, wake up dummy!

DeficitHawk says

keeprubbersidedown says

You really can’t be serious. In Benghazi people died number 1 and govt incompetence had a lot to do with it.

Oh yes, certainly people died. Questioning whether the security detail was appropriate or not is totally valid. If you think people were making bad judgements about how to run security, that's a good reason to want someone else to be making those decisions. of course hindsight is 20/20, and decisions reviewed in light of bad outcomes can always be cast as bad decisions even if the information available at the time may be more grey.

BUT, the discussion around Benghazi was NOT about questioning judgement on security details, who made those decisions, what information was available, etc.... it was an accusation and conspiracy that a crime had been committed.... "Lock Her Up", etc.

But bad judgement, even incompetence, is not a crime! w...

Yea. Your not serious. Maybe a troll idk. Good Luck

Benghazi and lock her up while intertwined is seperate.

DeficitHawk says

So, again, I AM serious. What is the crime that was alleged that led to "Lock Her Up?"

Clinton destroyed evidence while she was under subpoena.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/from-fbi-fragments-a-question-did-team-clinton-destroy-evidence-under-subpoena

This is relation to her private server, which contained classified material on a computer that was KNOWN to have been broken into. Why did she do this? We'll never know, because she wiped the server. We know SOME of the information that was on it, because she was using GOOGLE for email.

It APPEARS she was selling information and using that server that was "accidentally" infiltrated. That's what it appears, but she destroyed evidence, and nothing happened.