header pic

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Romney’s on board

 (Read 1537 times)

fuzzynavol

  • seeker of passage
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11477
  • Liked:
Re: Romney’s on board
« Reply #28 on: September 23, 2020, 11:21:50 AM »
You lack the intellectual curiosity to look beyond the tortured OPs in the WaPo.  That's why it's so important to you to disparage media that don't toe the line.  It wouldn't be possible for you to stay in your bubble if you gave any credence to reports of the exculpatory evidence regarding Trump or the duplicity of the Obama WH and DOJ.  It never strikes you as odd that The Times and WaPo hardly ever report anything good about Trump or bad about Obama.  To the intellectually lazy, it must be because Trump is a criminal and Obama was a man of the highest integrity. 
I watched the majority of the impeachment hearings on television, and came to the considered opinion that anyone who concluded that Trump was innocent of the QPQ would have to be clinically insane.  It's actually a good litmus test for anyone you're talking to about politics.  

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 43169
  • Liked:
Re: Romney’s on board
« Reply #29 on: September 23, 2020, 11:25:04 AM »
"Clinically insane", or perhaps more accurately politically biased?

I'm sure Democrats think he was guilty, and most Republicans think he was not.  Is either side insane, in the main?

I imagine Republicans, Trump supporters anyway, think Democrats are clinically insane for impeaching him.

ATexasVol

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 6339
  • Liked:
Re: Romney’s on board
« Reply #30 on: September 23, 2020, 11:29:41 AM »
I watched the majority of the impeachment hearings on television, and came to the considered opinion that anyone who concluded that Trump was innocent of the QPQ would have to be clinically insane.  It's actually a good litmus test for anyone you're talking to about politics. 
So you listened to the dimokrat side being presented, without the benefit of defense from the Republicans.   How very Soviet of you.  

CatsbyAZ

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1715
  • Liked:
Re: Romney’s on board
« Reply #31 on: September 23, 2020, 11:49:01 AM »
I'm still waiting for an ethical justification for denying Garland a vote by the Senate. 

I could respect someone saying, "I know it was wrong, but politics is so dirty that I'm not bothered by it and I'm glad they did it."  At least that would show some moral sanity.  But to believe, as most do in this forum, that the Republicans were right to deny Garland the vote, is a depressing reflection of your basic sense of ethics. 


You're wasting your time looking to respect anyone committed to their side of the aisle. Think of it like watching a football game, but worse. A flag is thrown. You root for the call to go against the other team before the ref can even announce the penalty. In politics nobody is committed to viewing things through the ref's eyes. And those that espouse the ref's viewpoint like Bloomberg TV are simply posturing for a market or brand. It doesn't take much "reffing" to see that what Mitch did to Merrick Garland was in bad political faith. The bigger question is why weren't the Democrats as outraged back in early 2016? They were haughty Clinton would win and fill the seat. If you remember, at the time Democrats were much angrier about North Carolina's "bathroom bill." Bottom line is Supreme seats only open two or three times/decade. Open Supreme seats are arguably more influential than any election outcome due to the longevity of their office. When they open it's all bets off. Fan bases can get past however a PI call might go in the second quarter of the second game of the season. It goes without saying that the Supreme Court stakes are infinitely higher. When it's a flag thrown during the 4th quarter of a tie game in the NFL Playoffs both sides show their fangs immediately.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GARVmrjprIg
« Last Edit: September 23, 2020, 11:57:41 AM by CatsbyAZ »

Volitale

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 347
  • Liked:
Re: Romney’s on board
« Reply #32 on: September 23, 2020, 11:54:48 AM »
I'm curious to know what (mis)deeds you have in mind that the Democrats have done en masse (not some rogue Democrat) that you think rises to the level of refusing granting a POTUS nominee for SCOTUS a vote in the Senate. 
Ramming Obamacare down the country’s throat while excusing themselves from it comes to mind.  

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 43169
  • Liked:
Re: Romney’s on board
« Reply #33 on: September 23, 2020, 11:55:42 AM »
Yeah, it often is good to deal with reality instead of some vision of "ethics".  Neither party would pass this by, neither of them.


Volitale

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 347
  • Liked:
Re: Romney’s on board
« Reply #34 on: September 23, 2020, 12:05:59 PM »
I'm still waiting for you to come clean about the bogus Mueller investigation
 
I have justified the Mueller investigation many times in this forum - you must have been on hiatus. 

BTW, it revealed Trump to be a criminal.

and the bogus impeachment.

Anyone denying Trump's QPQ has the intellectual integrity of an OJ juror. 

I am legitimately entertained by the QPQ argument.

 For one, it’s how foreign diplomacy is and has always been conducted.  It’s not charity.  It’s always you give us something, we’ll give you something.  

Secondly, if you don’t have a problem with Biden’s admitted QPQ with Ukraine, you shouldn’t have a problem with Trump’s perfect Ukraine call. 

Volitale

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 347
  • Liked:
Re: Romney’s on board
« Reply #35 on: September 23, 2020, 12:10:24 PM »
Yeah, it often is good to deal with reality instead of some vision of "ethics".  Neither party would pass this by, neither of them.


For once we agree.  The dems tried to do it with a lame duck President in 2016.  I think it was one of the more “ethical” things the pubs ever did to deny the vote.  No reason to waste time and money on something that wasn’t going to pass.  No reason to put Garland through that knowing he would be denied. 

fuzzynavol

  • seeker of passage
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11477
  • Liked:
Re: Romney’s on board
« Reply #36 on: September 23, 2020, 12:12:16 PM »
Ramming Obamacare down the country’s throat while excusing themselves from it comes to mind. 
What was unethical about the passing of Obamacare?

fuzzynavol

  • seeker of passage
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11477
  • Liked:
Re: Romney’s on board
« Reply #37 on: September 23, 2020, 12:16:47 PM »
No reason to put Garland through that knowing he would be denied.
That's not how the process works.  

What if I'd said, "look Hillary's about to win the popular vote by 3 million - no need to put Trump through the torture of losing the election."  

The reason McConnell didn't give him a vote was because of the chance he'd get confirmed.  Believe it or not, there are ethical Republicans - Garland had a shot thanks to a career of bi-partisan support (leaning Republican).  That's who Obama nominated him, because he knew he was someone who had a legitimate chance to get confirmed.  McConnell denied him the opportunity.  

Volitale

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 347
  • Liked:
Re: Romney’s on board
« Reply #38 on: September 23, 2020, 12:18:50 PM »
What was unethical about the passing of Obamacare?
I know you like to read only part of a statement and pick it apart piece by piece in order to miscontextualize It’s meaning.  It’s effective to a degree.  In this case however, would you just read the statement as a whole?  That’d be swell. 

highVOLtage

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 5738
  • Liked:
Re: Romney’s on board
« Reply #39 on: September 23, 2020, 12:20:30 PM »
I'm curious to know what (mis)deeds you have in mind that the Democrats have done en masse (not some rogue Democrat) that you think rises to the level of refusing granting a POTUS nominee for SCOTUS a vote in the Senate...

I watched the majority of the impeachment hearings on television, and came to the considered opinion that anyone who concluded that Trump was innocent of the QPQ would have to be clinically insane.  It's actually a good litmus test for anyone you're talking to about politics. 

Because you only saw a one-sided argument.

Do you consider it "ethical" for the majority party in the House to refuse to give the minority subpoena power to call witnesses and obtain documents, and to refuse to allow the President's lawyers to participate except until the very end of the House proceedings (unlike previous impeachments)?  Because that's what the Democrats did by not allowing due process for either the Republicans nor the President during their impeachment.

Volitale

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 347
  • Liked:
Re: Romney’s on board
« Reply #40 on: September 23, 2020, 12:22:08 PM »
That's not how the process works. 

What if I'd said, "look Hillary's about to win the popular vote by 3 million - no need to put Trump through the torture of losing the election." 

The reason McConnell didn't give him a vote was because of the chance he'd get confirmed.  Believe it or not, there are ethical Republicans - Garland had a shot thanks to a career of bi-partisan support (leaning Republican).  That's who Obama nominated him, because he knew he was someone who had a legitimate chance to get confirmed.  McConnell denied him the opportunity. 
Show me where it says that McConnell had to give a vote and I may agree with you.  Until then I’m pretty sure what was done is perfectly fine (unless you disagree with it)

fuzzynavol

  • seeker of passage
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11477
  • Liked:
Re: Romney’s on board
« Reply #41 on: September 23, 2020, 12:22:09 PM »
So you listened to the dimokrat side being presented, without the benefit of defense from the Republicans.  How very Soviet of you. 
So Trump had a masterfully exculpatory defense just waiting in the wings?  


 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.