LOL it's been 14 months he hasn't done/accomplished anything. You guys are funny.dajo9 said:I'd vote against Pence, but I wouldn't view him as a threat to the Republic like I view Trump. He's a more religious George W Bush, so he'd probably be in the bottom 1/4 of US Presidents. History will put Trump squarely at the bottom.iwantwinners said:Ok, can I bookmark this post lolbearister said:iwantwinners said:
I don't understand how Trump being impeached vindicates and/or validates any aspect liberal/leftist/Democrat ideology. It doesn't. They stand or fall on its own merits. A Republican will replace Trump if impeached, so it might be a net loss for Democrats.
I'll settle for anyone sane, with an above average IQ and not a traitor.
You'll 'settle' for Pence?????
OT: Trump/Russians/Robert Mueller
584,997 Views |
3284 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by BearForce2
No, I think it's a funny gif. Especially for this audience.dajo9 said:The funny thing is, you think this helps make a point in your favoriwantwinners said:dajo9 said:That only happens if your name is Clintonsycasey said:Yes, because that's how criminal investigations work. Detectives and prosecutors just spit out everything they have for public consumption before bringing charges against you.oski003 said:
What does he have on Trump? Spit it out, so we can impeach and move on.
Look, it's clear the hand-wringing is ideological and political partisan hackery masquerading as legitimate moral outrage. Trump, even more so than token Republicans, personifies the politics you hate so you waste your energy feigning moral outrage to make a political point when they're not even related.
But I get it, I think others here do to, which is why there is a long leash for you guys. You're still working through the trauma.
I think even the racist Republicans took less time to get over the Obama election...well actually maybe NOT!
Just to help you calibrate: Clinton was impeached for a crime he committed (August 1998) more than 4 years after the special counsel investigating him was appointed (August 1994, though it dated back to January 1994).oski003 said:
It's been 1 year, 8 months. It sure takes a long time to build a case against what many here call an idiot. I'll try to be more patient. I also don't understand why Mueller's focus is shifting to obstruction, especially in light of Brennan's apparent 'smoking gun.'
I'm sure in the 90's you were similarly willing to conclude on Clinton's behalf that the special counsel should be terminated after less than 12 months (Mueller was appointed 10 months ago).
yes, anybody who wasn't a dishonest, partisan hack did. That kangaroo impeachment was an absolute JOKE.Unit2Sucks said:Just to help you calibrate: Clinton was impeached for a crime he committed (August 1998) more than 4 years after the special counsel investigating him was appointed (August 1994, though it dated back to January 1994).oski003 said:
It's been 1 year, 8 months. It sure takes a long time to build a case against what many here call an idiot. I'll try to be more patient. I also don't understand why Mueller's focus is shifting to obstruction, especially in light of Brennan's apparent 'smoking gun.'
I'm sure in the 90's you were similarly willing to conclude on Clinton's behalf that the special counsel should be terminated after less than 12 months (Mueller was appointed 10 months ago).
And yet only a handful of republican congress members voted against impeachment (Peter King may be the only active republican congress member to have voted against it). A number of sitting senate republicans and current leaders of the Republican party even voted to convict him in the senate, not to mention Lindsay Graham who was one of the grandstanding impeachment managers as a house member back then.iwantwinners said:
yes, anybody who wasn't a dishonest, partisan hack did. That kangaroo impeachment was an absolute JOKE.
No s h i t Sherlock, congressmen and women are PARTISAN HACKS...you are not uncovering anything anybody with a pulse doesn't already know. It's like you want brownie points for pointing out that politicians are corrupt and will destroy their opponent and obfuscate their own party's flaws. Thanks..Unit2Sucks said:And yet only a handful of republican congress members voted against impeachment (Peter King may be the only active republican congress member to have voted against it). A number of sitting senate republicans and current leaders of the Republican party even voted to convict him in the senate, not to mention Lindsay Graham who was one of the grandstanding impeachment managers as a house member back then.iwantwinners said:
yes, anybody who wasn't a dishonest, partisan hack did. That kangaroo impeachment was an absolute JOKE.
Even if Dems regain the House (hopefully without Pelosi as Speaker), there won't be 67 votes in the Senate. Flake and Coker will be gone. Perhaps McCain too. Graham and Sasse are probably the only two Senate 'Pubs who would vote for impeachment.
Trump is a disaster, but better politically for Dems to let him twist in the wind. They need to find a solid candidate (hardly a slam dunk for the Dems) and take their chances in 2020.
Trump is a disaster, but better politically for Dems to let him twist in the wind. They need to find a solid candidate (hardly a slam dunk for the Dems) and take their chances in 2020.
I think arguably the best thing for the country is to expose Trump for any and all crimes that Mueller can prove and then impeach in the house and don't convict in the senate. That way Trump remains as a powerless president who is unable to get any support for his horrendous agenda for however long is left until 2020. The less that Trump (and the current incarnation of the republican party) is able to do, the better off our country is. Bonus points for any damage done to republicans trying to win their own elections.BearDevil said:
Even if Dems regain the House (hopefully without Pelosi as Speaker), there won't be 67 votes in the Senate. Flake and Coker will be gone. Perhaps McCain too. Graham and Sasse are probably the only two Senate 'Pubs who would vote for impeachment.
Trump is a disaster, but better politically for Dems to let him twist in the wind. They need to find a solid candidate (hardly a slam dunk for the Dems) and take their chances in 2020.
[accidental double post]
At least you've come around to being honest about your motivations. I was starting to enjoy, though, you constantly trying to fool yourself and everybody here that you actually really object, in principle, to the moral failings of an elected political servant. It's for the best, as nobody was buying it.Unit2Sucks said:I think arguably the best thing for the country is to expose Trump for any and all crimes that Mueller can prove and then impeach in the house and don't convict in the senate. That way Trump remains as a powerless president who is unable to get any support for his horrendous agenda for however long is left until 2020. The less that Trump (and the current incarnation of the republican party) is able to do, the better off our country is. Bonus points for any damage done to republicans trying to win their own elections.BearDevil said:
Even if Dems regain the House (hopefully without Pelosi as Speaker), there won't be 67 votes in the Senate. Flake and Coker will be gone. Perhaps McCain too. Graham and Sasse are probably the only two Senate 'Pubs who would vote for impeachment.
Trump is a disaster, but better politically for Dems to let him twist in the wind. They need to find a solid candidate (hardly a slam dunk for the Dems) and take their chances in 2020.
Unfortunately, politicians don't have the luxury you have. They've got to keep pretending it's a matter of moral principle and duty of an officer, not political agendas.
If only you would post with some degree of honesty. I've never been dishonest about my motivations or my viewpoints and I doubt you would be able to find anything to the contrary because unlike you my positions are consistent and reconcilable.iwantwinners said:
Unit2Sucks
At least you've come around to being honest about your motivations. I was starting to enjoy, though, you constantly trying to fool yourself and everybody here that you actually really object, in principle, to the moral failings of an elected political servant. It's for the best, as nobody was buying it.
Unfortunately, politicians don't have the luxury you have. They've got to keep pretending it's a matter of moral principle and duty of an officer, not political agendas.
I've been very clear from the start that Trump's moral failings do impact his job and you can feel free to continue to attack those beliefs but they haven't changed. You can refer to my prior response on the topic if you want a refresher on my views.
That's a bit irrelevant to the post you were responding to however because it's not Trump's moral failings that Mueller is charged with addressing. I have never said that I think Trump should be impeached due to his moral failings but having moral failings doesn't immunize Trump from criminal activity. I'm not sure if that's what you are implying but that seems to be a thread in the unhinged defenses of Trump from the anti-PC crowd. For example, just because Trump publicly asked Putin to hack Hillary's email doesn't absolve Trump from any cooperation with the Russians in the hacks.
By the way, we are still waiting for you to justify your statement about immutable characteristics in light of the fact that you think women and men are distinguishable as to career choices. Here's your quote:
Quote:
It is also misguided, in my view, to presume that such differences in immutable characteristics are the root of what makes people "different".
but that's not true, you conceded as much a minute ago, now you're taking it back.Unit2Sucks said:If only you would post with some degree of honesty. I've never been dishonest about my motivations or my viewpoints and I doubt you would be able to find anything to the contrary because unlike you my positions are consistent and reconcilable.iwantwinners said:
Unit2Sucks
At least you've come around to being honest about your motivations. I was starting to enjoy, though, you constantly trying to fool yourself and everybody here that you actually really object, in principle, to the moral failings of an elected political servant. It's for the best, as nobody was buying it.
Unfortunately, politicians don't have the luxury you have. They've got to keep pretending it's a matter of moral principle and duty of an officer, not political agendas.
I've been very clear from the start that Trump's moral failings do impact his job and you can feel free to continue to attack those beliefs but they haven't changed. You can refer to my prior response on the topic if you want a refresher on my views.
That's a bit irrelevant to the post you were responding to however because it's not Trump's moral failings that Mueller is charged with addressing. I have never said that I think Trump should be impeached due to his moral failings but having moral failings doesn't immunize Trump from criminal activity. I'm not sure if that's what you are implying but that seems to be a thread in the unhinged defenses of Trump from the anti-PC crowd. For example, just because Trump publicly asked Putin to hack Hillary's email doesn't absolve Trump from any cooperation with the Russians in the hacks.
By the way, we are still waiting for you to justify your statement about immutable characteristics in light of the fact that you think women and men are distinguishable as to career choices. Here's your quote:Quote:
It is also misguided, in my view, to presume that such differences in immutable characteristics are the root of what makes people "different".
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/22/trump-2018-midterms-republicans-480417?lo=ap_c1BearDevil said:
Even if Dems regain the House (hopefully without Pelosi as Speaker), there won't be 67 votes in the Senate. Flake and Coker will be gone. Perhaps McCain too. Graham and Sasse are probably the only two Senate 'Pubs who would vote for impeachment.
Trump is a disaster, but better politically for Dems to let him twist in the wind. They need to find a solid candidate (hardly a slam dunk for the Dems) and take their chances in 2020.
"They're all saying I'm going to do great in 2020. But they don't know if it's transferable. I hope it's transferable, because we have to do our agenda. We have to win in '18. We have to get the agenda. We need more Republicans."
Please quote where I "conceded as much".iwantwinners said:
but that's not true, you conceded as much a minute ago, now you're taking it back.
Not that facts seem to matter to you but I've already stated that I don't think Mueller should look into this Stormy Daniels nonsense and I've said why I think Trump's character matters. All you've done is draw uninformed conclusions from my posts.
Waiting for what? I don't follow what you're asking for here.Unit2Sucks said:
By the way, we are still waiting for you to justify your statement about immutable characteristics in light of the fact that you think women and men are distinguishable as to career choices. Here's your quote:Quote:
It is also misguided, in my view, to presume that such differences in immutable characteristics are the root of what makes people "different".
Sex is an immutable characteristic, yes, something the Left disputes with all their heart and none of their brain.
But that aside, what I was saying there are characteristics more and less prevalent in men and women in the aggregate that fulfill some of the variables in the muti-varied equations that explain starkly different career choices.
From what I remember, many here were attributing the difference in outcomes in terms of career choices to gender discrimination (but remember, gender is a social construct
). Someobody posted an article that said "women have no choice" in choosing professions with lower pay. Somebody else laid the stark differences at the feet of "unconscious bias", a go-to crutch for people who've given up on making actual arguments. And people were denigrating the Google memo, which was a response to "diversity" programs aimed re-correcting a natural phenomenon -- women choose engineering in much lesser percentages than men -- with reverse discrimination. The data has proven that in the aggregate, there are personality traits and interest levels in women that differ than those same things in men, leading to different career choices and different outcomes in a free, egalitarian society.
I'm not even sure if this answers your question. What I do know is there was some sneering at the memo in the thread but no argument as to what and why and how it was incorrect, wrong or misguided (not that he should have been smart and kept it to himself).
And, is it your position that women and men will sort themselves out in the exact same way in choices and outcome? And if they don't, that's proof of discrimination, and thus justifies intervention to correct those outcomes by instituting rules and regulations that further that end? Nevermind, I know the answer.
Yes Trump character matters, I'm saying does character matter in those whose politics aligns with yours?Unit2Sucks said:Please quote where I "conceded as much".iwantwinners said:
but that's not true, you conceded as much a minute ago, now you're taking it back.
Not that facts seem to matter to you but I've already stated that I don't think Mueller should look into this Stormy Daniels nonsense and I've said why I think Trump's character matters. All you've done is draw uninformed conclusions from my posts.
What I'm saying you conceded is you wanted the Mueller impeachment on Trump to push through in order to stop what you view are policies that are bad, not out of some principled outrage about his character or alleged treasonous behavior. Did you not do this?
In other words, you don't want Trump to do his job, if he did his job you lose because you don't agree with his ideology, rhetoric and policies. Which is reasonable enough in so far as you're not using morality and character as a crutch (virtue signaling).
You dispute this apparently. Ok.
BearChemist said:https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/22/trump-2018-midterms-republicans-480417?lo=ap_c1BearDevil said:
Even if Dems regain the House (hopefully without Pelosi as Speaker), there won't be 67 votes in the Senate. Flake and Coker will be gone. Perhaps McCain too. Graham and Sasse are probably the only two Senate 'Pubs who would vote for impeachment.
Trump is a disaster, but better politically for Dems to let him twist in the wind. They need to find a solid candidate (hardly a slam dunk for the Dems) and take their chances in 2020.
"They're all saying I'm going to do great in 2020. But they don't know if it's transferable. I hope it's transferable, because we have to do our agenda. We have to win in '18. We have to get the agenda. We need more Republicans."
Trump is hilarious. Any current projections about 2020 are worthless. Also so needy and butthutt about losses in Trump friendly AL and PA that he has to inflate his own sagging polls by nearly double digits. Roy Moore and Saccone were crappy candidates, but Trump still endorsed and campaigned for them and they both lost.
Dems should win in 2020, but not if they nominate a crappy candidate and run purely an anti-Trump campaign. Pence would be easier to beat than Trump in 2020.
Democrats can beat Trump. Easily. All they have to do is distance themselves form the SJW identity politics garbage. You know, like the stuff on these threads. If I were a Democrat I'd be pissed too over 2016. Not at Trump, at Liberals letting the SJW narrative become mainstream in their lexicon. That's what got Trump elected, not white nationalists and supremacists. Those guys/girls always vote Republican anywaysBearDevil said:BearChemist said:https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/22/trump-2018-midterms-republicans-480417?lo=ap_c1BearDevil said:
Even if Dems regain the House (hopefully without Pelosi as Speaker), there won't be 67 votes in the Senate. Flake and Coker will be gone. Perhaps McCain too. Graham and Sasse are probably the only two Senate 'Pubs who would vote for impeachment.
Trump is a disaster, but better politically for Dems to let him twist in the wind. They need to find a solid candidate (hardly a slam dunk for the Dems) and take their chances in 2020.
"They're all saying I'm going to do great in 2020. But they don't know if it's transferable. I hope it's transferable, because we have to do our agenda. We have to win in '18. We have to get the agenda. We need more Republicans."
Trump is hilarious. Any current projections about 2020 are worthless. Also so needy and butthutt about losses in Trump friendly AL and PA that he has to inflate his own sagging polls by nearly double digits. Roy Moore and Saccone were crappy candidates, but Trump still endorsed and campaigned for them and they both lost.
Dems should win in 2020, but not if they nominate a crappy candidate and run purely an anti-Trump campaign. Pence would be easier to beat than Trump in 2020.
(seriously)
I do dispute this because what you are completing misreading or misstating my argument.
If you read my post, you would see that I said that the best thing for the country would be for Trump to be exposed for "any and all crimes that Mueller can prove". I don't refer anywhere to character or "alleged" behavior, but I did specifically refer to provable crimes. If Mueller can't prove a crime, my statement would plainly not apply. Not sure any of this matters to you since you seem to blow past the facts to get to the conclusions you are looking to make which apparently in this case had to do with your all-time favorite topic of "virtue signalling."
I further said that I don't think Trump should be removed from office because republican policies are so bad that the country would end up worse off with Trump out of office prior to 2020. Nowhere do I refer to morality or whatever your deplorable-signalling was trying to get at. Wanting Trump to remain in office and powerless is not inconsistent with principled outrage about his commission of crimes and his incapability of being an effective President. In fact, it's entirely consistent, because it's his wielding of power that is precisely the concern that I and many people have. Remove the power and you remove the threat.
If you read my post, you would see that I said that the best thing for the country would be for Trump to be exposed for "any and all crimes that Mueller can prove". I don't refer anywhere to character or "alleged" behavior, but I did specifically refer to provable crimes. If Mueller can't prove a crime, my statement would plainly not apply. Not sure any of this matters to you since you seem to blow past the facts to get to the conclusions you are looking to make which apparently in this case had to do with your all-time favorite topic of "virtue signalling."
I further said that I don't think Trump should be removed from office because republican policies are so bad that the country would end up worse off with Trump out of office prior to 2020. Nowhere do I refer to morality or whatever your deplorable-signalling was trying to get at. Wanting Trump to remain in office and powerless is not inconsistent with principled outrage about his commission of crimes and his incapability of being an effective President. In fact, it's entirely consistent, because it's his wielding of power that is precisely the concern that I and many people have. Remove the power and you remove the threat.
Guccifer 2.0 has been identified as a Russian intelligence officer
Also, I would recommend against engaging with trolling behaviors.
Also, I would recommend against engaging with trolling behaviors.
I'm not saying wanting a political adversary out of power to negate possible further damage is unreasonable. Quite the contrary. It's perfectly reasonable, I'm saying any insinuation that the misconduct, morally or otherwise, is why one wants him gone is dishonest. We know why politicians have to be dishonest about this, there is no reason why the citizenry has to be. This is why using those instances is in fact virtue signaling -- you can hate the term all you want, I don't care; if people hated it that much, they'd stop engaging in it -- using the concept of moral superiority as a debate tactic that ultimately ends with your rejection of that person's ideology and political priorities.Unit2Sucks said:
I do dispute this because what you are completing misreading or misstating my argument.
If you read my post, you would see that I said that the best thing for the country would be for Trump to be exposed for "any and all crimes that Mueller can prove". I don't refer anywhere to character or "alleged" behavior, but I did specifically refer to provable crimes. If Mueller can't prove a crime, my statement would plainly not apply. Not sure any of this matters to you since you seem to blow past the facts to get to the conclusions you are looking to make which apparently in this case had to do with your all-time favorite topic of "virtue signalling."
I further said that I don't think Trump should be removed from office because republican policies are so bad that the country would end up worse off with Trump out of office prior to 2020. Nowhere do I refer to morality or whatever your deplorable-signalling was trying to get at. Wanting Trump to remain in office and powerless is not inconsistent with principled outrage about his commission of crimes and his incapability of being an effective President. In fact, it's entirely consistent, because it's his wielding of power that is precisely the concern that I and many people have. Remove the power and you remove the threat.
I mean I get why people who found it important that Hillary get elected over Trump (or any Republican) were silent or outright dismissive of her moral and politically dishonest failings. Where it became a problem is when they used the same debate tactics to moralize about their political adversaries when it had nothing to do with their outrage or agenda.
The ignore works and is good.
I've learned my lesson and will follow suit.Another Bear said:
The ignore works and is good.
much like gender, you can't redefine "trolling" as views you disagree with.BearChemist said:
Guccifer 2.0 has been identified as a Russian intelligence officer
Also, I would recommend against engaging with trolling behaviors.
Virtue signalers whose sensibilities are offended tend to feel the need to inject rallying cries to join their agenda.
When 4 law firms turn you down for representation and your lead attorney quits in the 3rd Qtr., you've got problems. When you replace your now former lead attorney with some conspiracy clown you've got an F..ing disaster just waiting to happen. Mueller the consummate professional is just working his way up the food chain unbothered by the noise from the Big Cheeto. In the end Trump will panic and make a mistake, he can't help himself.
The OJ case was more than a lot defense attorneys could chew or were willing to risk, but honest defense attorneys will admit they have little problem representing a client they know is guilty and is pleading innocent.
BearChemist said:
Guccifer 2.0 has been identified as a Russian intelligence officer
Also, I would recommend against engaging with trolling behaviors.
Guccifer 2.0 as an officer of Russia's largest foreign intelligence agency, Wikileaks, Roger Stone, and Trump? Is Mueller starting to put the pieces together? Mueller is like a Great White Shark just circling his prey as Trump bobs up and down in the water with a large cut on his leg. Eventually the shark is going to strike, but he's in no hurry.
From your lips to God's earsBearNIt said:BearChemist said:
Guccifer 2.0 has been identified as a Russian intelligence officer
Also, I would recommend against engaging with trolling behaviors.
Guccifer 2.0 as an officer of Russia's largest foreign intelligence agency, Wikileaks, Roger Stone, and Trump? Is Mueller starting to put the pieces together? Mueller is like a Great White Shark just circling his prey as Trump bobs up and down in the water with a large cut on his leg. Eventually the shark is going to strike, but he's in no hurry.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joseph-digenova-victoria-toensing-not-joining-trumps-russia-legal-team/
After all, even diGenova can't join the dream team to defend Trump. Better call Saul.
After all, even diGenova can't join the dream team to defend Trump. Better call Saul.
Even Trump hasn't publicly said anything, his administration expels scores of Russian diplomats in response to the UK nerve reagent attack. Gotta give credit when it is due.
BearChemist said:
Even Trump hasn't publicly said anything, his administration expels scores of Russian diplomats in response to the UK nerve reagent attack. Gotta give credit when it is due.
"While today's decision sends an important signal to Moscow, the only way to ensure Putin and his cronies feel the consequences of their brazen actions is by punishing them financially," Arizona Sen. John McCain, a frequent Russia critic said in a statement.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Careful, you're virtue signaling.iwantwinners said:I'm not saying wanting a political adversary out of power to negate possible further damage is unreasonable. Quite the contrary. It's perfectly reasonable, I'm saying any insinuation that the misconduct, morally or otherwise, is why one wants him gone is dishonest. We know why politicians have to be dishonest about this, there is no reason why the citizenry has to be. This is why using those instances is in fact virtue signaling -- you can hate the term all you want, I don't care; if people hated it that much, they'd stop engaging in it -- using the concept of moral superiority as a debate tactic that ultimately ends with your rejection of that person's ideology and political priorities.Unit2Sucks said:
I do dispute this because what you are completing misreading or misstating my argument.
If you read my post, you would see that I said that the best thing for the country would be for Trump to be exposed for "any and all crimes that Mueller can prove". I don't refer anywhere to character or "alleged" behavior, but I did specifically refer to provable crimes. If Mueller can't prove a crime, my statement would plainly not apply. Not sure any of this matters to you since you seem to blow past the facts to get to the conclusions you are looking to make which apparently in this case had to do with your all-time favorite topic of "virtue signalling."
I further said that I don't think Trump should be removed from office because republican policies are so bad that the country would end up worse off with Trump out of office prior to 2020. Nowhere do I refer to morality or whatever your deplorable-signalling was trying to get at. Wanting Trump to remain in office and powerless is not inconsistent with principled outrage about his commission of crimes and his incapability of being an effective President. In fact, it's entirely consistent, because it's his wielding of power that is precisely the concern that I and many people have. Remove the power and you remove the threat.
I mean I get why people who found it important that Hillary get elected over Trump (or any Republican) were silent or outright dismissive of her moral and politically dishonest failings. Where it became a problem is when they used the same debate tactics to moralize about their political adversaries when it had nothing to do with their outrage or agenda.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/28/trump-lawyer-presidential-pardon-flynn-manafort-mueller?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Obstruction of justice just got a lot clearer. Also in the news...
Mueller: Trump campaign's Gates knew he was speaking to Russian intel agent
Mueller: Trump campaign's Gates knew he was speaking to Russian intel agent
Quote:
A court filing from Special Counsel Mueller's team says Gates stated he was aware "Person A" was linked to Russian intelligence.
Featured Stories
See All
Nohl Williams Named Consensus All-American
by Cal Athletics
Depleted Bears Fall to #24 UNLV in LA Bowl, 24-13
by Jim McGill
Cal Squares Off With No. 24 UNLV At LA Bowl
by Cal Athletics
Bear Insider Podcast #E102: Cal vs UNLV - LA Bowl Preview
by Mike Pawlawski
The Rodcast: Cal-Stanford Breakdown
by Rod Benson