James Comey, dead man walking

[Tony Stark]

Trump isn't the one who rigged the primary process of his party to ensure his own nomination. That's not simply putting into question the democratic process, that's actively subverting it, and it's what Hillary and her allies did.

And the attacks on Trump have been primarily about Trump the person, not his policy positions, so it's more than a little ironic to make that a centerpiece of your accusation against him.

Trump is a dumpster fire, but he's not the source of the problem, and the institutional failings of the political class and the press are far more of a threat in the long run than Trump is.

The problem is that the Republican party and their voters are total trash.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I note that you didn't say his mistake was putting Comey in charge of the FBI, but simply a Republican. Everything is partisan to you. That's why you think everything is partisan to everyone else.

Technically it was not recognizing all Bush(a mainstream republican) appointees as the incompetent criminals and partisan individuals who would abuse their power that they turned out to be.

 

[Beerina]

This time could backfire on them, especially regarding the Supreme Court. It's very simple for people to see that there's an opening on the court, that the president has nominated someone, and that the GOPers are refusing to vote on it. It's tough to paint the prez as the bad guy when anyone with a few functioning neurons can see that it's the GOP that's to blame.

Steve S

What they should do is bring it to a vote, then vote the guy down. If they had balls. Which they don't.

 

[Tony Stark]

What they should do is bring it to a vote, then vote the guy down. If they had balls. Which they don't.

Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley, ect were afraid that if there were hearings and a vote that Garland would be confirmed.

 

[fuelair]

Comey just sent yet another letter to congress, stating:

“During that process, we reviewed all of the communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State,” Comey wrote. “Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.”

Will Comey:

1) resign after the election
2) be fired by Obama
3) be fired by Clinton
4) stay on the job as a whipped little bitch
5) on planet X, Comey is the new president

ETA: First poll. hope I did it correctly...

he should resign now, for being a toady republicker tool!!!!! Or a complete and total tool.

 

[fuelair]

duped again!!!!! This is getting old!!!

 

[Ziggurat]

You know what I was talking about, don't you? So why try to change the subject?

Because I think it's relevant. If you feel otherwise, then you can ignore my post.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that how political parties choose their candidates is their own affair.

Who is "they"? The party insiders? Or the party as a whole? Because last time I checked, the party as a whole hadn't agreed to rig the primary process in favor of Hillary.

Because he has none.

That's not true. In fact, there was even a thread on this forum complaining about his tax proposal.

When did he ever engage in a conversation about his policies?

How would you know? Your only understanding of him is from the press, and what does the press focus on? Exactly what you're complaining about. And yet he gets all the blame, and you don't even notice what the press is doing.

Just because you vote Republican doesn't mean you have to defend every single thing any of them does, you know?

And I haven't. Did you not notice me calling Trump a dumpster fire in this very thread? Yes, actually you did, because you just quoted me saying that.

Oh, and I haven't voted straight ticket since college, and I voted Democrat then.

Now, that's genuinely interesting. Could you expand on that?

Trump is the symptom, not the disease. Our political class is inbred and incestuous with the press, and increasingly disconnected from the average voter. We are being condescended to by our inferiors. There's a hell of a lot of completely justified public anger at the political establishment. Republicans don't trust the party leadership because the party leadership has sold them out, repeatedly. They don't trust the press because the press regularly lies and is incredibly biased.

So along comes a man who actually has some credibility as an outsider, and when he promises to address topics that voters want addressed (like immigration), they pay attention. And all the press howls of outrage fall on deaf ears, because that boy has cried wolf far too often. Look at how they treated Romney. Regardless of what you think of his policies, as an individual he's one of the most decent candidates to run in our lifetime. And he got treated like he's a monster. Do you really think the press can keep doing that to every Republican candidate and it won't have any effect? Hell, look at Tony, right here in this thread. He basically brags about his black-and-white partisanship. Well, if all Republicans are monsters, even the decent ones, then why not vote for the one that scares people like Tony the most?

The press has spent years trying, and to a significant degree succeeding in, demonizing conservative positions. If you wanted to stop illegal immigration, that meant you were a racist. If you're worried about Islamic terrorism, you're an Islamophobe, which really just means you're a racist. If you think that the collapse of marriage in the black community is a major factor in inner city crime, then you're a racist. But making a position illegitimate doesn't actually make the problem it's responding to go away. If people can't find respectable candidates who openly address these topics, then they will turn to unsavory candidates who will do so.

Hillary wanted Trump as her opponent. She wanted to pull a Todd Akin. And the press played along (you can find plenty of stories from the primaries about how other candidates like Cruz were supposedly worse than Trump). They don't get to be horrified by the deliberate result of their own strategy.

 

[fuelair]

What they should do is bring it to a vote, then vote the guy down. If they had balls. Which they don't.

Sure they do - resting on their chins!!!!!

 

[ponderingturtle]

So along comes a man who actually has some credibility as an outsider, and when he promises to address topics that voters want addressed (like immigration), they pay attention. And all the press howls of outrage fall on deaf ears, because that boy has cried wolf far too often. Look at how they treated Romney. Regardless of what you think of his policies, as an individual he's one of the most decent candidates to run in our lifetime. And he got treated like he's a monster.

In what way? That he gave out speeches calling the elderly entitlement moochers was the fault of the press?

 

[Tony Stark]

Because I think it's relevant. If you feel otherwise, then you can ignore my post.



Who is "they"? The party insiders? Or the party as a whole? Because last time I checked, the party as a whole hadn't agreed to rig the primary process in favor of Hillary.



That's not true. In fact, there was even a thread on this forum complaining about his tax proposal.



How would you know? Your only understanding of him is from the press, and what does the press focus on? Exactly what you're complaining about. And yet he gets all the blame, and you don't even notice what the press is doing.



And I haven't. Did you not notice me calling Trump a dumpster fire in this very thread? Yes, actually you did, because you just quoted me saying that.

Oh, and I haven't voted straight ticket since college, and I voted Democrat then.



Trump is the symptom, not the disease. Our political class is inbred and incestuous with the press, and increasingly disconnected from the average voter. We are being condescended to by our inferiors. There's a hell of a lot of completely justified public anger at the political establishment. Republicans don't trust the party leadership because the party leadership has sold them out, repeatedly. They don't trust the press because the press regularly lies and is incredibly biased.

So along comes a man who actually has some credibility as an outsider, and when he promises to address topics that voters want addressed (like immigration), they pay attention. And all the press howls of outrage fall on deaf ears, because that boy has cried wolf far too often. Look at how they treated Romney. Regardless of what you think of his policies, as an individual he's one of the most decent candidates to run in our lifetime. And he got treated like he's a monster. Do you really think the press can keep doing that to every Republican candidate and it won't have any effect? Hell, look at Tony, right here in this thread. He basically brags about his black-and-white partisanship. Well, if all Republicans are monsters, even the decent ones, then why not vote for the one that scares people like Tony the most?

The press has spent years trying, and to a significant degree succeeding in, demonizing conservative positions. If you wanted to stop illegal immigration, that meant you were a racist. If you're worried about Islamic terrorism, you're an Islamophobe, which really just means you're a racist. If you think that the collapse of marriage in the black community is a major factor in inner city crime, then you're a racist. But making a position illegitimate doesn't actually make the problem it's responding to go away. If people can't find respectable candidates who openly address these topics, then they will turn to unsavory candidates who will do so.

Hillary wanted Trump as her opponent. She wanted to pull a Todd Akin. And the press played along (you can find plenty of stories from the primaries about how other candidates like Cruz were supposedly worse than Trump). They don't get to be horrified by the deliberate result of their own strategy.

Yeah good luck with the ever increasing minority vote when your trash party and its trash voters pick trash like Donald Trump.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah good luck with the ever increasing minority vote when your trash party and its trash voters pick trash like Donald Trump.

White nationalism has been the base of the republican party since Goldwater, it is what got the evangelicals into their tent after all. It is just demanding center stage again.

 

[Belz...]

Because I think it's relevant. If you feel otherwise, then you can ignore my post.

Nice. Maintaining the dodge, I see.

Who is "they"? The party insiders? Or the party as a whole? Because last time I checked, the party as a whole hadn't agreed to rig the primary process in favor of Hillary.

You haven't demonstrated that they have. You also have not addressed what I said, which leads me to conclude that you know that doing so would hurt your position.

That's not true. In fact, there was even a thread on this forum complaining about his tax proposal.

Trump doesn't have policies. He says things randomly but those are not policies.

How would you know? Your only understanding of him is from the press

I would prefer if you did not play mind reader, Zig. Do not pretend to know what I know or where I take my information. Thank you.

And I haven't. Did you not notice me calling Trump a dumpster fire in this very thread?

I did, but that doesn't change what I said.

Oh, and I haven't voted straight ticket since college, and I voted Democrat then.

Sure you did.

Trump is the symptom, not the disease. Our political class is inbred and incestuous with the press, and increasingly disconnected from the average voter.

And yet the country does objectively better than it has for a long time. Maybe the system works better than you think.

We are being condescended to by our inferiors.

What "inferiors"?

The press has spent years trying, and to a significant degree succeeding in, demonizing conservative positions.

Republican positions. The Republicans haven't helped themselves by denying climate science, trying to screw over women over reproductive rights, etc.

If you wanted to stop illegal immigration, that meant you were a racist. If you're worried about Islamic terrorism, you're an Islamophobe, which really just means you're a racist. If you think that the collapse of marriage in the black community is a major factor in inner city crime, then you're a racist. But making a position illegitimate doesn't actually make the problem it's responding to go away.

What problems are those? Is illegal immigration or even terrorism such a big problem on US soil?

 

[Ziggurat]

You haven't demonstrated that they have.

I thought you were aware of the Wikileaks emails showing coordination between the DNC and Hillary's campaign against Sanders.

Trump doesn't have policies.

Yes, he does.

I would prefer if you did not play mind reader, Zig. Do not pretend to know what I know or where I take my information. Thank you.

How else are you getting your information? You just demonstrated that you aren't going to the source.

Sure you did.

Given your above complaint, that's rich.

And yet the country does objectively better than it has for a long time. Maybe the system works better than you think.

How are you making that objective determination? I assume you're going by press reports of cherry picked statistics. Yeah, I know, I'm again assuming that you rely on the press, but I've yet to see any evidence to the contrary. But not only are there indicators that are not doing better, aggregate statistics are only part of the story. Bernie Sanders is completely wrong about the solution, but he's right about the complaint: a lot of working class families are really struggling, and things aren't improving for them.

What "inferiors"?

Most politicians and reporters. They consider themselves better than the public, but they aren't. In general, they have no particular competence.

Republican positions. The Republicans haven't helped themselves by denying climate science, trying to screw over women over reproductive rights, etc.

You're doing that demonization yourself. You can't help but describe policy disagreements as being malicious. I suspect you can't even think about them in any other terms.

What problems are those? Is illegal immigration or even terrorism such a big problem on US soil?

Yes, illegal immigration is a massive problem. And why are you artificially constraining concern for terrorism to "US soil"? Under that standard, Nazi Germany was virtually no problem at all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, he does.

Someone who maintains his web page does. BUt as he has had even Twitter taken away from him and never articulated them himself can you really call them his?

His policies as he states them tend to be things like get the best people to crush ISIS in 60 days.

 

[Tony Stark]

Someone who maintains his web page does. BUt as he has had even Twitter taken away from him and never articulated them himself can you really call them his?

His policies as he states them tend to be things like get the best people to crush ISIS in 60 days.

He knows more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe him. He has a very good brain.

 

[Belz...]

I thought you were aware of the Wikileaks emails showing coordination between the DNC and Hillary's campaign against Sanders.

I was. Was that what you meant by "rigging"?

Yes, he does.

"Make America Great Again" isn't much of a policy.

How else are you getting your information? You just demonstrated that you aren't going to the source.

Disagreeing with you isn't the same thing as being uninformed.

Given your above complaint, that's rich.

What does that even mean?

How are you making that objective determination?

Objective numbers. You know, like the unemployment rate, crime rate, etc.

I assume you're going by press reports of cherry picked statistics.

Ah, yes, I'm sure the numbers are somehow wrong when they disagree with you. Perhaps the numbers are just not being informed.

Most politicians and reporters. They consider themselves better than the public, but they aren't.

How are you making that objective determination?

You're doing that demonization yourself. You can't help but describe policy disagreements as being malicious. I suspect you can't even think about them in any other terms.

What are you babbling about now? What demonisation, what accusation of maliciousness? Were you responding to another thread?

Yes, illegal immigration is a massive problem.

Claim requires evidence.

And why are you artificially constraining concern for terrorism to "US soil"?

Artificially? Are you nuts? We're talking about US policy and politics, here. Why would voters be worried about beheadings in Syria to the point where they'd consider blocking Muslims from entering the country?

 

[Ziggurat]

Disagreeing with you isn't the same thing as being uninformed.

And yet, when I provide you with a bunch of information about Trump's policy proposals, you ignore it all.

Objective numbers. You know, like the unemployment rate, crime rate, etc.

There's more than one measure of unemployment, and they aren't all good (plus, again, the difference between aggregate and individual results). For example, the labor force participation rate hasn't recovered from the recession. And I keep hearing people claiming crime is down, but they almost always reference statistics through 2014. Violent crime actually increased from 2014 to 2015. Furthermore, local crime rate trends don't always follow national trends.

Ah, yes, I'm sure the numbers are somehow wrong when they disagree with you.

I never said the numbers were wrong.

What are you babbling about now? What demonisation, what accusation of maliciousness? Were you responding to another thread?

"trying to screw over women" is a description of malice. The kicker is that you can't even recognize it as such.

Artificially? Are you nuts? We're talking about US policy and politics, here. Why would voters be worried about beheadings in Syria to the point where they'd consider blocking Muslims from entering the country?

You moved the goalpost. Your argument wasn't that the problem doesn't justify that particular response, your argument was that it wasn't a significant problem at all.

 

[Ziggurat]

Someone who maintains his web page does. BUt as he has had even Twitter taken away from him and never articulated them himself can you really call them his?

He paid for them, so yes, I can call them his. They aren't mine.

 

[Tony Stark]

"trying to screw over women" is a description of malice. The kicker is that you can't even recognize it as such.

GOP scum literally want to force women to have kids they don't want/can't afford to take care of. And these same scumbags are the ones that are opposed to measures that are proven to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

They can go **** themselves.

 

[ponderingturtle]

He paid for them, so yes, I can call them his. They aren't mine.

He paid someone to make a presidential campaign page sure, but that doesn't mean he could even articulate a basic understanding of any of them. To say nothing about going about getting the agenda passed.

With what he actually says in his speeches you can't build any kind of policy other than building the wall and mexico will pay for it. He changes his views on other things constantly.