Antagonist in Chief

[hodad]

You don't know what you are calling me..?

I know what I'm calling Trump. I'm saying he's a wannabe dictator and a fascist.

I'm not saying this to be "uncivil," or in an uncivil manner. The man has shown pretty clearly who he is, what he admires, and what he'd like to be.

And my story is straight enough. You seem all too eager to take offense here. Maybe instead of being offended by me, you should question why you're not offended by Trump.

 

[pucho812]

Only Trump can be taken literally. Right? Or is it all evil Republicans? I can never keep track. Or are you giving Uncle Joe a pass because of his dementia, maybe? Or just because it was so obviously wrong.

If I had a nickel for every time biden made reference to nukes and citizens, it wouldn’t be a lot but it would be weird and scary it happened twice.

 

[pucho812]

From WaPo:

Former attorney general William P. Barr, who served under Donald Trump, said Friday that there is no legitimate reason for the former president to have taken boxes of declassified documents to his Mar-a-Lago home.

I don't care for Bill Barr's politics at all, and the man bent over backwards to please Donald Trump (until he finally stopped doing so.) He's not an idiot though. I'm not sure what it takes to convince hardcore Trumpists that their lord and saviour was crimin' big time. Is it even possible to make them question their seemingly unshakable faith in the man?

Pretty simple, have evidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt like in a court of law

 

[Recording Engineer]

Pretty simple, have evidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt like in a court of law

That only seems to apply to whom we want it to apply to. Were you saying that about Hillary? Are you saying that about Hillary? No. Hypocrisy is the name of the game.

 

[Recording Engineer]

Now he is shaping up to be as much of a blowhard as Trump ever was and clearly more divisive.

You’re on a policy utopia high if you truly think Biden has been clearly more divisive. Blinded by the light comes to mind.

 

[fallout]

You’re on a policy utopia high if you truly think Biden has been clearly more divisive. Blinded by the light comes to mind.

It's funny how the media works.

 

[Recording Engineer]

I read it to mean you'd have to be an idiot to think you are going to take on the Federal Government with small arms.

This basically is what I’ve pointed out before, but people hear what they want and try and twist things to fit a narrative instead of saying hmmm you might be right. In fact, how many times in any of all these political threads has anyone said “my mistake”, “you are right”, or “I was wrong”, even about the littlest, stupidest stuff. People can call them out and they still won’t admit it or no one clearly on the same “team” will call them out. All that alone should tell people something is effed up!

 

[Recording Engineer]

It's funny how the media works.

Nothing like taking some truth and leading a movement with it. It works because it kinda makes you a god. Don’t listen to all them. They’re all out to get you. I’m the only one looking out for you. I will show you the way.

 

[Recording Engineer]

I don't understand how this logic works.

Apples and pears. CA law allows for a recall election of the Governor if sufficient voter signatures are gathered within a certain timeframe. This was done.
Impeachment is just Congress slapping the wrist of POTUS and has no real legal standard to be met. They have hearings and if enough don't like the man or his actions they impeach him. It's purely political theater. The 25th Amendment is more akin to a recall.

You conveniently didn’t mention the part of the impeachment process that shows it truly is apples to apples.

The Senate votes to convict or not convict. And that vote can be based on absolutely anything. A good old-fashion popularity contest is a fine enough vote. NOT based on the evidence, like anyone would think! Conviction in the presidential impeachment process means booted out of office.

 

[pucho812]

That only seems to apply to whom we want it to apply to. Were you saying that about Hillary? Are you saying that about Hillary? No. Hypocrisy is the name of the game.

Yes. They had evidence on Clinton. Remember James comey interrupted the tv day to spend 15 minutes saying that she was guilty and wouldn’t be charged.
Trump on the other hand has has years of Adam schiff saying we have a bombshell witness or evidence that will prove it and then it either doesn’t prove it or isn’t evidence. Remember a friend of a friend heard from a friend that he dove for the steering wheel on 1/6. Schiff went with that as proof until the ones in the limo detail said it never happened.

 

[Matador]

Remember James comey interrupted the tv day to spend 15 minutes saying that she was guilty and wouldn’t be charged.

Oh? Let's look!

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case...

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

Sounds more like...TOTAL EXONORATION.

#buthisboxes #lockhimup

 

[AnalogPackrat]

You conveniently didn’t mention the part of the impeachment process that shows it truly is apples to apples.

The Senate votes to convict or not convict. And that vote can be based on absolutely anything. A good old-fashion popularity contest is a fine enough vote. NOT based on the evidence, like anyone would think! Conviction in the presidential impeachment process means booted out of office.

2/3 majority required (vs. simple majority popular vote) with serious political (read electability) ramifications for Senators who vote for political ends (vs. citizens voicing their direct opinion with no political consequences). Still apples to pears.

 

[Recording Engineer]

No political consequences for voters. Sure. Except the whole thing is nothing more than a window of opportunity for the opposing political party!

Either way, it’s neither here nor there… Talk about getting in the weeds, on purpose, as much as possible, to avoid the reflection in the pond. A prime example of what I was saying in post #407.

 

[pucho812]

had msnbc on in the shop tonight. The same folks who were unhappy with bill burr for how he handled the Robert muller investigation are now all fawning over him like a school girl in the height of beatle mania. All because he said things they like.

 

[Recording Engineer]

Or maybe it’s because someone on the right, that the left loves to hate, is actually admitting what it actually appears (even if it turns out otherwise), rather than just spitting out the official right-wing BS defense rhetoric of Trump. A breath of fresh air, finally. We should all applaud his courage and follow his lead! I guess he feels he has nothing to loose since both sides hate him already.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

No political consequences for voters. Sure. Except the whole thing is nothing more than a window of opportunity for the opposing political party!

So, despite Newsom doing a terrible job, you wouldn't do anything to recall him because that might mean supporting "the opposing political party." So even if that's better for CA you wouldn't do it.

Either way, it’s neither here nor there… Talk about getting in the weeds, on purpose, as much as possible, to avoid the reflection in the pond. A prime example of what I was saying in post #407.

In 2021 it was an opportunity to start fixing CA. You and people like you missed it. Do you think Newsom would be a good POTUS?

 

[pucho812]

So, despite Newsom doing a terrible job, you wouldn't do anything to recall him because that might mean supporting "the opposing political party." So even if that's better for CA you wouldn't do it.


In 2021 it was an opportunity to start fixing CA. You and people like you missed it. Do you think Newsom would be a good POTUS?

No he would not.

 

[pucho812]

Or maybe it’s because someone on the right, that the left loves to hate, is actually admitting what it actually appears (even if it turns out otherwise), rather than just spitting out the official right-wing BS defense rhetoric of Trump. A breath of fresh air, finally. We should all applaud his courage and follow his lead! I guess he feels he has nothing to loose since both sides hate him already.

Ok so as long as he says things because they appear vs what the truth is, even though you hate him, we will pretend to like him. That’s rather far fetched. He is been away from position that any comments are at best assumptions and or speculations.

 

[Recording Engineer]

So, despite Newsom doing a terrible job, you wouldn't do anything to recall him because that might mean supporting "the opposing political party." So even if that's better for CA you wouldn't do it.

Did he do any illegal activity, as proven in court, that I’m unaware of? If the answer is no, then my answer is no, I wouldn’t do it. I can wait until the regular election cycle; rather than waste more money.

In 2021 it was an opportunity to start fixing CA. You and people like you missed it. Do you think Newsom would be a good POTUS?

Of course not. He’s too left for me. However, he’d meet his match running in a national election for anything, with those way too right for me.

 

[Matador]

You’re on a policy utopia high if you truly think Biden has been clearly more divisive. Blinded by the light comes to mind.

I'll note here that when I tried to include all of Trump's insults against Democrats, the XenForo board wouldn't let me post it, because of the 20,000 character limit on posts. I had to delete roughly half of it.

So yes....clearly more divisive.