Page 16 of 66 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 1302

Thread: The Democratic Primaries: Joe Biden is the Nominee

  1. #301
    Banned Bantam Division
    Fatfrancesa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,863
    Rep Power
    0

  2. #302
    Banned Bantam Division
    Fatfrancesa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,863
    Rep Power
    0
    https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup

    From a man of the left. Worth reading

  3. #303
    Banned Bantam Division
    Fatfrancesa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,863
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    The point I was making was that she's not a Democrat. Not in today's party, at least. Which thoroughly explains the lack of enthusiasm for her candidacy, regardless of what Clinton said, which was monumentally short-sighted and stupid.
    It maybe short sighted and stupid but its the exact thing she accused of Trump. Difference is her short sighted and stupid comment about Trump was turned into a 3 year investigation into Trump. After three years there is zero evidence that Trump had anything to do with Russia. All the perceived issues that Trump or anybody connected to him had during that investigation was with the process not the substance. Meaning Trump may have obstructed the investigation or a Trump surrogate might have lied to investigators or cheated on their taxes.

    I would imagine Tulsi Gabbard's campaign should now how the full weight of the NSA, CIA, and FBI, not to mention the 5 eyes of our allies spying on her and her surrogates. I mean its been accused she's a traitor and a Russian asset. She is running for President and by all means she must be investigated to protect our country. Right?

  4. #304
    The prince that was promised BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    90,481
    Rep Power
    556
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatfrancesa View Post
    It maybe short sighted and stupid but its the exact thing she accused of Trump. Difference is her short sighted and stupid comment about Trump was turned into a 3 year investigation into Trump. After three years there is zero evidence that Trump had anything to do with Russia. All the perceived issues that Trump or anybody connected to him had during that investigation was with the process not the substance. Meaning Trump may have obstructed the investigation or a Trump surrogate might have lied to investigators or cheated on their taxes.
    Incorrect. You repeating this over-and-over doesn't make it any closer to being true.

    The investigation uncovered ten counts of Obstruction and sank literally dozens of his accomplices/acolytes. It outlined, in painstaking detail, his campaign's overt acceptance of Russian interference in a U.S. election — something all of our intelligence agencies have come to the same conclusion on.
    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  5. #305
    ContraQuinndicated BSBH Prospect
    G1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    19,538
    Rep Power
    313
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatfrancesa View Post
    It maybe short sighted and stupid but its the exact thing she accused of Trump. Difference is her short sighted and stupid comment about Trump was turned into a 3 year investigation into Trump. After three years there is zero evidence that Trump had anything to do with Russia . All the perceived issues that Trump or anybody connected to him had during that investigation was with the process not the substance. Meaning Trump may have obstructed the investigation or a Trump surrogate might have lied to investigators or cheated on their taxes.
    That's objectively wrong. The meetings at Trump Tower, the outward asks for Russian support, the extremely odd public fawning over Putin, the vast majority of the Mueller report, etc, etc. If anything, it seems like Trump has very deep ties to Russia, and presumably other former Bloc countries. He clearly has ties to at least Ukraine and Slovenia.

    If there's "no collusion" and "no connection", why not just testify? Or share your tax returns? Or do anything like an innocent person might? He just projects out whatever it is he's done onto others, regardless of truth - specifically for the purpose of deflecting attention from him. Heck, at this point, I want to see his long-form birth certificate. He might be Kenyan.

    I would imagine Tulsi Gabbard's campaign should now how the full weight of the NSA, CIA, and FBI, not to mention the 5 eyes of our allies spying on her and her surrogates. I mean its been accused she's a traitor and a Russian asset. She is running for President and by all means she must be investigated to protect our country. Right?
    Probably, though Clinton didn't say she was an asset. Clinton said she was being groomed to be an asset. Not that Clinton's a saint here or anything.
    Hidden Content
    Blueshirts Brotherhood. We do what we must because we can - for the good of all Rangerkind

  6. #306
    Banned Bantam Division
    Fatfrancesa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,863
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    Incorrect. You repeating this over-and-over doesn't make it any closer to being true.

    The investigation uncovered ten counts of Obstruction and sank literally dozens of his accomplices/acolytes. It outlined, in painstaking detail, his campaign's overt acceptance of Russian interference in a U.S. election — something all of our intelligence agencies have come to the same conclusion on.

    You keep saying show the proof. I can't show proof of what doesn't exist. So show the collision evidence against Trump. Link me to it. Link the part in the Mueller report that says the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Should be easy if its like you say. You keep saying I keep posting this false narrative. You ban me for not providing proof of a negative. So show your proof. Not opinion pieces or innuendo. Show me straight from the Mueller report which is public where it says that Trump colluded with Russia.

    Obstruction offenses are process offenses. Obstruction to a bogus investigation to begin with. Is he guilty of that, fine. Now by your rules we can't use whataboutisms. So convict Trump on the obstruction. The half the country that doesn't agree with you lives in their reality that Clinton obstructed the shit out of her investigation and nothing happened. That Obama used his Presidency to politicize the intelligence agencies to attack a political opponent. I'm not stating either as fact, I'm stating that point as what half the country believes.

    The point here is that Trump was investigated by Obama's administration for colluding with Russians first before anything else. There was literally zero evidence of that, yet we shouldn't ask how FISA warrants were continually approved to investigate an American civilian? Talking about obstruction is moving the goal posts. Show me the collusion.

  7. #307
    Banned Bantam Division
    Fatfrancesa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,863
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by G1000 View Post
    That's objectively wrong. The meetings at Trump Tower, the outward asks for Russian support, the extremely odd public fawning over Putin, the vast majority of the Mueller report, etc, etc. If anything, it seems like Trump has very deep ties to Russia, and presumably other former Bloc countries. He clearly has ties to at least Ukraine and Slovenia.

    If there's "no collusion" and "no connection", why not just testify? Or share your tax returns? Or do anything like an innocent person might? He just projects out whatever it is he's done onto others, regardless of truth - specifically for the purpose of deflecting attention from him. Heck, at this point, I want to see his long-form birth certificate. He might be Kenyan.



    Probably, though Clinton didn't say she was an asset. Clinton said she was being groomed to be an asset. Not that Clinton's a saint here or anything.
    Nothing nefarious about any meeting ever came true. outward asks for Russian support is innuendo and proof of nothing, either is odd public fawning any more proof then catching a hot mic saying he can be more flexible after the election. Most bloc countries were antiTrumop to the nth degree because of his stance against NATO. Biden has ties to Ukraine too. Clinton has ties to Russia and Uranium ONE. That is fact. Trump's connection is accused bye those very people who are indeed connected there.

    You want him to share his tax returns? Why in hell would he volentarily give his tax returns to a hostile press and an opposition party that has endless investigated him about everything he does? Are they acting in good conscience? As an American citizen he has no obligation to do so. If that bothers you as a voter it is you're right not to vote for him. However that is no proof of anything, it is by definition HYPER PARTISAN, because saying so is innuendo, as is most off your post.

  8. #308
    The prince that was promised BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    90,481
    Rep Power
    556
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatfrancesa View Post
    You keep saying show the proof. I can't show proof of what doesn't exist. So show the collision evidence against Trump. Link me to it. Link the part in the Mueller report that says the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Should be easy if its like you say. You keep saying I keep posting this false narrative. You ban me for not providing proof of a negative. So show your proof. Not opinion pieces or innuendo. Show me straight from the Mueller report which is public where it says that Trump colluded with Russia.

    Obstruction offenses are process offenses. Obstruction to a bogus investigation to begin with. Is he guilty of that, fine. Now by your rules we can't use whataboutisms. So convict Trump on the obstruction. The half the country that doesn't agree with you lives in their reality that Clinton obstructed the shit out of her investigation and nothing happened. That Obama used his Presidency to politicize the intelligence agencies to attack a political opponent. I'm not stating either as fact, I'm stating that point as what half the country believes.

    The point here is that Trump was investigated by Obama's administration for colluding with Russians first before anything else. There was literally zero evidence of that, yet we shouldn't ask how FISA warrants were continually approved to investigate an American civilian? Talking about obstruction is moving the goal posts. Show me the collusion.
    "After three years there is zero evidence that Trump had anything to do with Russia" ≠ collusion. Pick a lane/argument and stay in it. I'm happy to have the converation with you. But not if you routinely move the goalposts.

    No one can argue with the shotgun blast of grievance you are firing here.
    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  9. #309
    Banned Bantam Division
    Fatfrancesa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,863
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    "After three years there is zero evidence that Trump had anything to do with Russia" ≠ collusion. Pick a lane/argument and stay in it. I'm happy to have the converation with you. But not if you routinely move the goalposts.

    No one can argue with the shotgun blast of grievance you are firing here.
    ok. show me the collusion in the mueller report

  10. #310
    The prince that was promised BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    90,481
    Rep Power
    556
    This is one of the worst strawmen arguments I think I've ever seen made. Try responding to what I actually said.

    "It outlined, in painstaking detail, his campaign's overt acceptance of Russian interference in a U.S. election — something all of our intelligence agencies have come to the same conclusion on."

    Repeating "no collusion," doesn't falsify the conclusion of every U.S. intelligence agency that investigated Trump-Russia. Moreover, demanding that opponents show you "evidence" of things they made no claims for is an utterly dishonest position to hold.
    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  11. #311
    Banned Bantam Division
    Fatfrancesa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,863
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    This is one of the worst strawmen arguments I think I've ever seen made. Try responding to what I actually said.

    "It outlined, in painstaking detail, his campaign's overt acceptance of Russian interference in a U.S. election — something all of our intelligence agencies have come to the same conclusion on."

    Repeating "no collusion," doesn't falsify the conclusion of every U.S. intelligence agency that investigated Trump-Russia. Moreover, demanding that opponents show you "evidence" of things they made no claims for is an utterly dishonest position to hold.
    How is asking for the evidence of what the investigation was launched in the first place to prove a straw man argument? You asked me to stop moving the goal posts so I did. The mueller investigation was based on trumps collusion with Russia. So what is that evidence? It’s a public report. I’m arguing it doesn’t exist. I can’t post a link to something that doesn’t exist. You are arguing it does. The report is public, please post the portion that presents the evidence.

  12. #312
    The prince that was promised BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    90,481
    Rep Power
    556
    The Mueller investigation was literally titled "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election." That's what it was based on. What it uncovered, ultimately, was ten counts of Obstruction, and a world of Trump-Russia and Trump-Bloc ties, many of which took down dozens of those close to Trump.

    This thread is entirely off it's rails now. If you want to continue this conversation, we need to open a new thread. This one is about the 2020 Democratic Candidates for President, not an open ticket to relitigate the Mueller report.
    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  13. #313
    Rural Supremacist BSBH Prospect
    Dunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    16,316
    Rep Power
    398
    Not to digress too much but I thought this was relevant seeing how Trump got in via Electoral College.

    Our Federal Election was last night and the Trudeau Liberals will again form government. The Conservatives actually won the popular vote by a wide margin.

    What's funny is that the Libs promised electoral reform last time around and had they followed through on that it would be a conservative government.

    Anyways, carry on.

  14. #314
    ContraQuinndicated BSBH Prospect
    G1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    19,538
    Rep Power
    313
    Quote Originally Posted by Dunny View Post
    Not to digress too much but I thought this was relevant seeing how Trump got in via Electoral College.

    Our Federal Election was last night and the Trudeau Liberals will again form government. The Conservatives actually won the popular vote by a wide margin.

    What's funny is that the Libs promised electoral reform last time around and had they followed through on that it would be a conservative government.

    Anyways, carry on.
    Sorry, man. It's bullshit to lose a popular vote and still win the election.
    Hidden Content
    Blueshirts Brotherhood. We do what we must because we can - for the good of all Rangerkind

  15. #315
    Rural Supremacist BSBH Prospect
    Dunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    16,316
    Rep Power
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by G1000 View Post
    Sorry, man. It's bullshit to lose a popular vote and still win the election.
    I voted for the PPC, which was hilariously branded as crazy racist extremists for simply wanting to shrink government. It's really a De Tocquevillian party, which isn't allowed in polite society. We got 1% of the vote lol.

  16. #316
    The prince that was promised BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    90,481
    Rep Power
    556
    Quote Originally Posted by NY Chief View Post
    JFK wouldn't be a Dem in todays party
    I mean, that's possible, sure. But this same exercise would hold true of either party if you look at the right candidates. I'm pretty sure Theodore Roosevelt and Eisenhower would recoil at today's GOP, for example.

    The point on Gabbard is that she's running as a Democrat in today's party despite holding very little common ground with the party's principle positions.
    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  17. #317
    Banned Bantam Division
    Fatfrancesa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,863
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    I mean, that's possible, sure. But this same exercise would hold true of either party if you look at the right candidates. I'm pretty sure Theodore Roosevelt and Eisenhower would recoil at today's GOP, for example.

    The point on Gabbard is that she's running as a Democrat in today's party despite holding very little common ground with the party's principle positions.
    I’m pretty sure most people who consider themselves republican recoil at the party. It’s why trump won the nomination. Because people are tired of the corrupt bullshit in Washington. Both parties. That is not to say trump isn’t majorly flawed. But the labeling of deplorable and white nationalist of his supporters is lazy and infuriating. The media, the left, etc do it all the time. I for one don’t care what pronoun you use. What goes on in your bedroom, what color, race or creed you are. I want you and I to happy with as little as possible interference from others telling you or me what I have to do or think. I don’t need lectures on climate change by people who play fantasy for a living and fly around in private jets telling me my carbon footprint is a problem. I don’t need politicians telling me my born privilege is a problem while I work 365 days a year to afford a middle class lifestyle. All the while their son sits on company boards with no good reason other than his actual privilege. Please just leave me to make decisions for me and my family. Yes I do know better than the givernment for what my needs are

  18. #318
    Moderator Bantam Division
    RodrigueGabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    DC Area
    Posts
    1,217
    Rep Power
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by NY Chief View Post
    JFK wouldn't be a Dem in todays party
    JFK's activism on civil rights would not be saleable to today's GOP. If not a Dem, he'd be man without a party.

    Sent from my SM-G970U using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

  19. #319
    The prince that was promised BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    90,481
    Rep Power
    556
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatfrancesa View Post
    I’m pretty sure most people who consider themselves republican recoil at the party. It’s why trump won the nomination. Because people are tired of the corrupt bullshit in Washington. Both parties. That is not to say trump isn’t majorly flawed. But the labeling of deplorable and white nationalist of his supporters is lazy and infuriating. The media, the left, etc do it all the time. I for one don’t care what pronoun you use. What goes on in your bedroom, what color, race or creed you are. I want you and I to happy with as little as possible interference from others telling you or me what I have to do or think. I don’t need lectures on climate change by people who play fantasy for a living and fly around in private jets telling me my carbon footprint is a problem. I don’t need politicians telling me my born privilege is a problem while I work 365 days a year to afford a middle class lifestyle. All the while their son sits on company boards with no good reason other than his actual privilege. Please just leave me to make decisions for me and my family. Yes I do know better than the givernment for what my needs are
    Believe it or not, I don't disagree with much of this. Minus the deplorable/white nationalist stuff, which is rooted in rising trends and fact.

    But again, the point I was making on Gabbard is that she barely qualifies as a Democrat. She adopted the name but leans a bit right on far too many issues to be taken seriously as a Democratic 2020 contender.

    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  20. #320
    Banned Bantam Division
    Fatfrancesa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,863
    Rep Power
    0
    On that note good night to the political talk

Page 16 of 66 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •