BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 1078 Pages +
  • « First
  • 650
  • 651
  • 652
  • 653
  • 654
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? Bernie Sanders wants to know who owns America?

#13021 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,084
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2019-June-28, 12:53

 barmar, on 2019-June-28, 09:27, said:

Wasn't the Obama era full of "deals" like that? He was dealing with an obstructionist Congress, and it seemed like getting anything passed was considered a win. Obamacare ended up being a far cry from what we really wanted, it had to be gutted to get it passed.

And of course Biden is going to spin it in the best possible terms, that's just politics. You don't say "Well, we cut the damage by $600 billion", you say "We got them to give us $600 billion in concessions".


indeed this was at a time when the R motto was "To Hell with the economy, to Hell with the country, to Hell with everything other than destroying the Obama presidency". So yes, we do have to take that into account.



Ken
1

#13022 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,220
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2019-June-28, 13:19

 barmar, on 2019-June-28, 09:27, said:

Wasn't the Obama era full of "deals" like that? He was dealing with an obstructionist Congress, and it seemed like getting anything passed was considered a win. Obamacare ended up being a far cry from what we really wanted, it had to be gutted to get it passed.

And of course Biden is going to spin it in the best possible terms, that's just politics. You don't say "Well, we cut the damage by $600 billion", you say "We got them to give us $600 billion in concessions".


Obama had a majority for the first 2 years of his presidency, which is how the ACA was passed. The 2008 midterms - truly the entire Obama presidency other than the first two years - was a disaster for the Democratic party. When Obama took office, there were 60 Democratic senators. That fell to 46. The number of House seats held by Democrats shrunk from 257 to 188. The party lost state elections galore, as well.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#13023 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2019-June-29, 10:40

From 'A betrayal': Inside the bitter rift between Pelosi and Schumer over border bill by Mike DeBonis and Rachael Bade at WaPo:

Quote

“The Senate has a good bill; our bill is much better,” Pelosi told her members at a Tuesday caucus meeting. Said Hoyer to reporters the same day: “We think it’s not as good as our bill but not a bad bill.”

On Wednesday, Schumer, Pelosi and Lowey met before attending a joint news conference on election security, shortly after Pelosi ended a phone call with Trump, who pushed her to accept the Senate bill. The three agreed on a strategy of sending the bill back to the Senate in hopes of forcing a quick negotiation, according to an aide familiar with the exchange.

In the meeting, Schumer rattled off the list of wins his colleague secured in the Senate bill. Pelosi and Lowey agreed the bill was good, according to a Senate aide familiar with the exchange. But Schumer also said the House bill was preferable, a House aide added, so Pelosi and her team still expected Schumer would play hardball to win more concessions.

Those mixed messages, and the bipartisan Senate committee vote, sent the message to Republicans that they had little reason to negotiate further. McConnell had another card to play as well: The presidential debates Wednesday and Thursday took seven Democratic senators away from Washington. When time came to vote on the House version of the border bill, Democrats could muster only 38 votes — short of what they would need to block passage of the Senate bill.

When it came time to vote on the Senate version, only six Democrats withheld their votes. The rest were absent or voted for it — including Schumer.

Pelosi and those in her leadership circle were shocked. To them, Schumer had given McConnell a nuclear weapon — the ability to brag that his legislation had overwhelming bipartisan support and should therefore pass the House.

The next day, Pelosi walked into the two-hour-long leadership meeting saying Schumer couldn’t keep his members in line. One senior Democratic aide called it “a betrayal”; another lawmaker called it “a broken deal.”

But to those in Schumer’s orbit, the Wednesday bipartisan Senate vote should not have come as a surprise. In their view, the House had gone AWOL on border negotiations for weeks and should have known the depth of Democratic support for the bill following the 30-to-1 committee vote.

In addition, according to Senate officials familiar with the talks, neither Pelosi or any other House Democrat at any point explicitly asked Senate Democrats to block the Senate version of the bill. The real leverage point, they believed, would come after the House sent back an amended Senate bill on Thursday — forcing a negotiation with Republicans.

Instead, Democratic centrists in the House who were fortified by the overwhelming Senate vote blocked that strategy, touching off an intense round of finger-pointing.

During one private meeting this week, some top Democrats mocked Schumer for speaking on the Senate floor Wednesday alongside a horrifying photo of a drowned migrant father and daughter while appearing at the same to be undermining the House’s efforts to make the bill better for children.

Others whispered that Senate Democrats were “smelling the jet fumes” of the July 4 holiday recess — or simply didn’t want to complicate the schedules of their colleagues running for president who needed to attend the debate in Miami on Wednesday and Thursday.

In a statement Friday, Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said that “the Speaker’s focus has always been on Mitch McConnell. He shortchanged the children when he said ‘get lost’ to the House.”

“Senate and House Democrats are united in realizing Mitch McConnell is standing in the way of doing so much good for America, including doing even more for the children at the border,” said Schumer spokesman Justin Goodman.

McConnell makes these guys look like amateurs.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#13024 User is offline   rmnka447 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,366
  • Joined: 2012-March-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Bridge, Golf, Soccer

Posted 2019-June-29, 10:56

 Winstonm, on 2019-June-28, 13:19, said:

Obama had a majority for the first 2 years of his presidency, which is how the ACA was passed. The 2008 midterms - truly the entire Obama presidency other than the first two years - was a disaster for the Democratic party. When Obama took office, there were 60 Democratic senators. That fell to 46. The number of House seats held by Democrats shrunk from 257 to 188. The party lost state elections galore, as well.


We all recall how ACA was passed and it was ugly -- back room deals, sweetheart arrangements, etc. -- to keep the required Senate 60 votes. And, of course, the iconic comment by Speaker Pelosi on the ACA "Pass it, so we can find out what's in it." It was a kluge from the start pushed through without any bipartisanship. It was not a shining moment for our democracy.

The demise of Dem majorities was the result of the electorate recognizing how opposed they were to what the Dems/Obama administration was pushing. Simple answer, throw the bums out. And, they did.
0

#13025 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,220
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2019-June-29, 16:30

 rmnka447, on 2019-June-29, 10:56, said:



Simple answer, throw the bums out. And, they did.


No, that was 2018 midterms.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#13026 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,084
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2019-June-29, 16:38

There is still no shortage of buns in need of throwing out.
Ken
0

#13027 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,220
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2019-June-29, 19:00

 kenberg, on 2019-June-29, 16:38, said:

There is still no shortage of buns in need of throwing out.


I don't mind the bums so much as the grifters.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#13028 User is offline   rmnka447 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,366
  • Joined: 2012-March-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Bridge, Golf, Soccer

Posted 2019-June-29, 20:43

 Winstonm, on 2019-June-29, 16:30, said:

No, that was 2018 midterms.


The electorate want the Congress to work at solving the nation's problems, but the 2018 "replacements" seem to be faring no better. Maybe, there's another flip of the House in 2020. We shall see.
0

#13029 User is offline   rmnka447 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,366
  • Joined: 2012-March-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Bridge, Golf, Soccer

Posted 2019-June-29, 20:45

 kenberg, on 2019-June-29, 16:38, said:

There is still no shortage of buns in need of throwing out.


Da Nang Dick?
0

#13030 User is offline   johnu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,901
  • Joined: 2008-September-10
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2019-June-30, 02:14

 rmnka447, on 2019-June-29, 20:45, said:

Da Nang Dick?


Putin's Puppet, the Manchurian President, President Fake Bone Spurs, has no beef with anybody's military history and shouldn't be going near the subject in case his own sorry draft history sees the light of day.
0

#13031 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,519
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2019-June-30, 04:24

 rmnka447, on 2019-June-29, 10:56, said:


Welcome back rmnka. Now that you are, care to tell us whether you still consider Bill Barr a straight shooter? Cause I'd be interested whether you are here to genuinely discuss the issues, or just to score talking points and jump to the next one when the previous one has run its course turned out to be utter BS.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

#13032 User is offline   johnu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,901
  • Joined: 2008-September-10
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2019-June-30, 05:30

 rmnka447, on 2019-June-29, 10:56, said:

We all recall how ACA was passed and it was ugly -- back room deals, sweetheart arrangements, etc. -- to keep the required Senate 60 votes. And, of course, the iconic comment by Speaker Pelosi on the ACA "Pass it, so we can find out what's in it." It was a kluge from the start pushed through without any bipartisanship. It was not a shining moment for our democracy.

The demise of Dem majorities was the result of the electorate recognizing how opposed they were to what the Dems/Obama administration was pushing. Simple answer, throw the bums out. And, they did.


There was too much bipartisanship. The Democrats let the Republicans make all sorts of amendments to the ACA and some parts of them even made it into the final bill. When push came to shove, there wasn't a single Republican who would step up and vote for the bill. Ironic, since the basis of the bill came from a Republican proposal years before.

Contrast this with Dennison tax cut bill that was done in complete secrecy by senior Republicans and then had to be voted on before anybody could read what was in the bill, or before the actual cost of the bill could be costed out by the Joint Committee on Taxation. Of course, who could blame them. :rolleyes: If the cost of the bill was publicized before the vote, it would have caused serious problems for many who voted for it because it blew a hole in the budget that hasn't stopped growing.

Of course, it's better to be a bum, than a grifter, a conman, a traitor to the country, a felon, a criminal conspirator, a foreign puppet, in other words, most of Dennison's administration and campaign staff.
1

#13033 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2019-June-30, 07:35

 rmnka447, on 2019-June-29, 10:56, said:

We all recall how ACA was passed and it was ugly -- back room deals, sweetheart arrangements, etc. -- to keep the required Senate 60 votes. And, of course, the iconic comment by Speaker Pelosi on the ACA "Pass it, so we can find out what's in it." It was a kluge from the start pushed through without any bipartisanship. It was not a shining moment for our democracy.

The demise of Dem majorities was the result of the electorate recognizing how opposed they were to what the Dems/Obama administration was pushing. Simple answer, throw the bums out. And, they did.

The electorate was *so* opposed?

Quote

In 2008, 51% of Americans polled by Pew Research said that it is the federal government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage. In 2016, that number increased to 60%.

Since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, Republicans have promised repeatedly to come up with a replacement that increases coverage, increases quality and reduces cost.

In May 2017, with Republicans controlling all three branches of government, Paul Ryan succeeded in getting the House to pass a bill that Business Insider described as "the least popular major bill in decades" and which major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, strongly condemned.

In July 2017, the Senate rejected Ryan's bill in a 51-to-49 vote, with Republican senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and John McCain joining all Senate Democrats in voting against it.

I wouldn't go so far as to call that a shining moment for democracy but it was definitely a glimmer.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#13034 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,220
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2019-June-30, 07:45

 rmnka447, on 2019-June-29, 20:43, said:

The electorate want the Congress to work at solving the nation's problems, but the 2018 "replacements" seem to be faring no better. Maybe, there's another flip of the House in 2020. We shall see.


Many of the red-state electorate who were bombarded with right-wing propaganda did not know that Obamacare and the ACA were the same thing. Maybe by 2020 a few in Kentucky and Pennsylvania will grasp that coal isn't coming back, that Russia is indeed an enemy of democracies, and that Individual-1 is using their support to line his pockets.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
1

#13035 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2019-June-30, 12:39

A betrayal by Schumer? Sounds like the House Dems have only themselves to blame for failing to hammer out a consensus:

Quote

WASHINGTON — For all the talk of a Tea Party of the left, the true power in the House revealed its face last week — the Mighty Moderates.

The failure of House liberals to attach strict conditions to billions of dollars in emergency border aid requested by President Trump highlighted the outsize power of about two dozen centrist Democrats, mainly from Republican-leaning districts, who are asserting themselves to pull the chamber to the right.

Their views diverge sharply from the mostly liberal cast of Democrats seeking their party’s presidential nomination and from the diverse new crop of outspoken liberals in the House who have captured the public’s imagination and infused new energy into the progressive majority of their caucus. But their victories in districts that Mr. Trump won in 2016 are the reason Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, a staunch liberal herself, holds her gavel. For now, they are proving far more effective at wielding their influence than those in the party’s vocal and headline-grabbing left.

“Where they come from is crucial to holding the House, and that makes them very influential,” said Laura Hall of the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington. “If you’re Speaker Pelosi or another member of the Democratic leadership, you have to always be thinking about those members whose seats went from red to blue and helped to flip the House.”

The moderates’ latest use of that clout played out in sometimes ugly fashion last week in the Capitol, in heated scrums on the House floor, angry exchanges between erstwhile allies, mudslinging on Twitter, and late-night meetings with leadership. One liberal accused his moderate colleagues of enabling child abuse. A moderate clapped back that the name-caller, Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, was just chasing followers on social media.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, whose rock-starlike popularity on the left has given her a louder than usual microphone for a first-term lawmaker, accused the moderates of being the new Tea Party.

Their tactics, she huffed, are “just horrifying.”

The nasty intraparty divisions looked familiar to Republicans, who could scarcely restrain their glee as Ms. Pelosi grappled with the same dynamics their party faced when it held the House majority. The former speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin and his predecessor, John A. Boehner of Ohio, had to contend with the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, the ideological outgrowth of the Tea Party, which routinely threatened to vote against crucial measures they considered insufficiently conservative.

“It seems to me that Nancy Pelosi’s facing exactly the same set of problems that John Boehner faced,” Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma, said with a chuckle. “She’s very able, but it’s rough. We've been there.”

Well, not quite. The Tea Party, which drew its name from the mantra “Taxed Enough Already,” represented the far-right of the Republican Party, while the coalition of Democrats that is now asserting itself is in the center, often allied with moderate Republicans across the aisle.

But unlike Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and her like-minded colleagues, the moderates have taken a tactical page from the roughly 40 Republicans who make up the Freedom Caucus, whose sway in the Republican majority came from their willingness to defect from the party line on crucial votes unless they received concessions.

While the House’s liberal superstars are adept at promoting their progressive positions and routinely generate headlines for breaking with the party line, they have not made a habit of lobbying their colleagues to defy Ms. Pelosi en masse. Last week, the foursome known as The Squad — Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and Representatives Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna S. Pressley of Massachusetts — announced their opposition to a Democratic border spending bill that included strict rules on the way the money could be used, saying it was not liberal enough. But when that first vote was tallied, they were the only four Democrats opposed, and the measure passed easily.

The moderates, in contrast, have been ready and willing to bring legislation down. In a majority that holds the House by a narrow margin, Ms. Pelosi can afford to lose no more than 17 of her fellow Democrats on any vote. That gives a potent weapon to any faction that can hold together that many lawmakers to insist on its position.

The moderates began demonstrating their penchant for breaking with their leaders on the House floor early this year, siding with Republicans on procedural votes meant to put Democrats in a tough political spot. They also balked at a two-year budget measure they worried would worsen a fiscal picture already badly stained by red ink. Threats to block any effort by liberals to increase domestic spending essentially assured that the bill would not have the necessary support to pass, and the vote was postponed indefinitely.

Their influence has also been felt on one major initiative that has not taken off; concern for their fates is one reason that Democratic leaders seldom talk about impeaching Mr. Trump, a move that is now supported by more than 80 House Democrats, about one-third of the caucus, almost all of them progressives.

But last week was the centrists’ most visible and audacious power play yet.

With the Senate and House at a stalemate over the $4.6 billion humanitarian aid package, several of the moderates banded together and threatened to side with Republicans to block a Democratic alternative that contained less money for immigration enforcement and more conditions for the administration. The move pushed Ms. Pelosi to abandon her plan to pass the more restrictive bill, which had higher standards for facilities holding migrant children. Instead she brought up a Senate version that had bipartisan support and swiftly cleared it to become law.

The move left Ms. Pelosi’s natural allies in the House’s Hispanic and progressive caucuses stunned and feeling betrayed. “Since when did the Problem Solvers Caucus become the Child Abuse Caucus?” Mr. Pocan said on Twitter. Representatives Max Rose, Democrat of New York, and Dean Phillips, Democrat of Minnesota, were later seen angrily confronting him on the House floor.

Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona and a former co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said the episode left him “very resentful,” and feeling as if the moderates had essentially forced the House to silence its natural inclinations.

“I just hope that in forcing us to do nothing, they don’t feel like they’ve actually accomplished anything,” Mr. Grijalva said. “I don’t know what the motivation was, to try to assert some power or what, but in the future, we shouldn’t hesitate bringing our agenda and our legislation forward because it might offend 23 or 24” centrists.

The episode also exposed divisions among the moderates themselves. On the House floor on Thursday, about 10 moderate freshman Democrats huddled near the marble dais, arguing about the way forward. One lawmaker said if they sided with the other party in a bid to force the House to consider the weaker Senate bill, “we might as well be Republicans,” according to one person familiar with the exchange who described it on the condition of anonymity.

Representative Abigail Spanberger, Democrat of Virginia, grew red-faced and emotional during the exchange, and stormed off the House floor, returning a short time later and accepting an embrace from Representative Katie Porter, Democrat of California. Both ultimately supported the bill.

It was a version of a point that had been made, in much gentler fashion, during floor remarks by Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts and the chairman of the Rules Committee. He warned that the procedural move the moderates were threatening to join “is a vote to give control of the House floor to the Republicans.”

But the moderates said they had done the party a favor, getting the House to the only tenable position as quickly as possible.

“The question was, would you rather just obstruct and delay, as some wanted to, or were we going to get humanitarian aid to children at the border right now?” said Representative Josh Gottheimer, Democrat of New Jersey and the co-chairman of the Problem Solvers Caucus, a group of 23 Republicans and 23 Democrats that presses for bipartisan compromises.

The group met on Wednesday and discussed the mounting anxiety many of them had about going home for a July 4 recess having failed to pass the border bill. After taking a vote, members decided to issue a news release calling for the House to pass the Senate bill, effectively surrendering a politically risky fight over immigration so the aid could go through.

“There was a very significant and real concern that we wouldn’t act at all and leave town with no immediate humanitarian aid for children at the border,” Mr. Gottheimer said. “That was unacceptable.”

The result was a bitter pill for liberals who had insisted they could not vote for the aid package without tough new restrictions and higher standards for facilities that hold migrant children.

Ms. Pressley conceded that the left had work to do to figure out how to wield its power more effectively.

“We are building new muscle,” she said in an interview, “and as we build that new muscle, we will better understand how to flex it.”

Source: Julie Hirschfeld Davis at NYT:
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#13036 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2019-June-30, 12:44

Quote of the day from Matt Yglesias:

Quote

The split screen between Trump scuttling a reasonable non-proliferation agreement with Iran + falling all over himself to do photo ops with Kim Jong Un is just too much for me.

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#13037 User is offline   rmnka447 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,366
  • Joined: 2012-March-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Bridge, Golf, Soccer

Posted 2019-June-30, 23:32

 cherdano, on 2019-June-30, 04:24, said:

Welcome back rmnka. Now that you are, care to tell us whether you still consider Bill Barr a straight shooter? Cause I'd be interested whether you are here to genuinely discuss the issues, or just to score talking points and jump to the next one when the previous one has run its course turned out to be utter BS.


Genuine discussion? Are you kidding? Most of the posters on this thread are such progressive zealots that any sensible discussion will never happen.

I happen to be toward the other end of the political spectrum.

I didn't like President Obama because I thought his policies and agenda were wrong headed. But I would never in my wildest dreams engage in the name calling and vitriol toward him that more than a few of you engage in toward our current President. If that's your idea of moral superiority, I pity you.

I laugh at the incestuous way that you engage in trying to prove that everything you think is true. You proffer tons and tons of BS analyses by people who obviously dislike President Trump to prove how deplorable he is. Gee, those conclusions are no surprise. What would be a surprise would be if some of those experts didn't come to those conclusions some time. It's too much Quiggian logic. (Think -Wouk's The Caine Mutiny)

Yes, I still consider AG Barr a straight shooter. I think he has legitimate concerns about how the investigation of the Trump campaign got started. I think he did exactly the right thing in appointing Connecticut US Atty Jon Durham to look into it. He has an impeccable reputation for investigating and prosecuting political corruption cases. He also operates in a state that is not exactly right-wing. There's been enough information coming out through FOIA lawsuits to at least justify an inquiry into what happened.

Ultimately, I'd like to see that the DOJ/FBI are perceived to be completely free from bias in the investigation, prosecution, and administering of our laws. With the information that has come out over the last 2 years, there is at least a cloud of uncertainty about that now.

Unfortunately, I'm going to be dealing with some serious health issues over the next 6-8 months, so I probably won't be available to toss an occasional grenade into this thread and attempt to wake you up. It might be an impossible task, but I keep hoping. Prospects are pretty good that following that period I'll be back better than ever. See you then.
0

#13038 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,399
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2019-July-01, 03:21

 rmnka447, on 2019-June-30, 23:32, said:

Unfortunately, I'm going to be dealing with some serious health issues over the next 6-8 months,


Hope that things work out for the best.
Alderaan delenda est
3

#13039 User is offline   johnu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,901
  • Joined: 2008-September-10
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2019-July-01, 05:10

 rmnka447, on 2019-June-30, 23:32, said:

Genuine discussion? Are you kidding? Most of the posters on this thread are such progressive zealots that any sensible discussion will never happen.

I happen to be toward the other end of the political spectrum.

From what I've seen, you are from the teabag wing that has adopted Dennison as their moral authority. Nothing wrong with that. Right fringe media has made millionaires and semi-celebrities out of many of the craziest people you'll ever meet.

 rmnka447, on 2019-June-30, 23:32, said:

I didn't like President Obama because I thought his policies and agenda were wrong headed. But I would never in my wildest dreams engage in the name calling and vitriol toward him that more than a few of you engage in toward our current President. If that's your idea of moral superiority, I pity you.

I stand by everything I have called Dennison which are backed up by cold hard facts. Unfortunately, right fringe media has corrupted and ignored the truth. One example of this was that senior lady at Rep. Amash's town hall meeting who admitted that she had never heard that the Mueller report said that Dennison had committed crimes because she (only) watched Fox Propaganda Channel which somehow only showed Dennison's government paid personal attorney Barr's summary about 1000 times which left no doubt that Dennison was not guilty of anything.

 rmnka447, on 2019-June-30, 23:32, said:

I laugh at the incestuous way that you engage in trying to prove that everything you think is true. You proffer tons and tons of BS analyses by people who obviously dislike President Trump to prove how deplorable he is. Gee, those conclusions are no surprise. What would be a surprise would be if some of those experts didn't come to those conclusions some time. It's too much Quiggian logic. (Think -Wouk's The Caine Mutiny)

Yes, I still consider AG Barr a straight shooter. I think he has legitimate concerns about how the investigation of the Trump campaign got started. I think he did exactly the right thing in appointing Connecticut US Atty Jon Durham to look into it. He has an impeccable reputation for investigating and prosecuting political corruption cases. He also operates in a state that is not exactly right-wing. There's been enough information coming out through FOIA lawsuits to at least justify an inquiry into what happened.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Barr a straight shooter :rolleyes:

Barr's been corrupt since at least his first stint with the Bush administration

Barr’s Playbook: He Misled Congress When Omitting Parts of Justice Dep’t Memo in 1989

Quote

Members of Congress asked to see the full legal opinion. Barr refused, but said he would provide an account that “summarizes the principal conclusions.” Sound familiar? In March 2019, when Attorney General Barr was handed Robert Mueller’s final report, he wrote that he would “summarize the principal conclusions” of the special counsel’s report for the public.

Quote

When the OLC opinion was finally made public long after Barr left office, it was clear that Barr’s summary had failed to fully disclose the opinion’s principal conclusions.

At least the lying SOB is consistent B-)

 rmnka447, on 2019-June-30, 23:32, said:

Ultimately, I'd like to see that the DOJ/FBI are perceived to be completely free from bias in the investigation, prosecution, and administering of our laws. With the information that has come out over the last 2 years, there is at least a cloud of uncertainty about that now.

You really took the bait on that one, hook, line and sinker. There's a reason that Dennison and Fox Propaganda push these nutty conspiracy theories. A certain percentage of the population believes everything they say, so why stop when they are so successful. B-)
0

#13040 User is offline   jjbrr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,525
  • Joined: 2009-March-30
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2019-July-01, 08:23

I suppose this is a personal flaw in myself, but I have never - not a single time in my life - not even once, ever - found someone who uses the word "vitriol" unironically to deserve even a modicum of respect or serious consideration.

Won't somebody please think of the children with all these insults being slung around. These pearls aren't going to clutch themselves.
OK
bed
0

  • 1078 Pages +
  • « First
  • 650
  • 651
  • 652
  • 653
  • 654
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

382 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 382 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. Google,
  2. Facebook