Bearister, I'll see your anarchy and raise you an "Anarchy in the USA"... in Dallas... in 1978. (Work warning: pejorative at 5 seconds.)

iwantwinners said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

bearister said:

---

How do you lads like this sticky wicket?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-showdown/

---

I think this is unconstitutional. If the court determines it is constitutional, then I believe federalism is effectively dead. The fact that it will pass congress with 100% republican votes in favor of it will be all the evidence anyone ever needed to know that republicans don't truly believe in limits on the federal government or states' rights. Well, to be clear they will still profess to believe in those things in response to democrat policies but it will be harder for them to do so with a straight face. Fortunately for republicans, their constituency doesn't require their justifications to pass the laugh test.

---

THIS is what finally signals to you that federalism is dead???? Again, selective (and unprincipled) outrage indeed.

Not requiring justification to pass a laugh test is only unique to one ideological segment of the country???? K.

---

Uh yeah, it proves once and for all the self-anointed party of federalism has given up all pretense. Do you somehow hold out hope that Democrats will safeguard federalism?

Of course this won't stop republicans from continuing to federalism-signal but what's new.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

bearister said:

---

How do you lads like this sticky wicket?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-showdown/

---

I think this is unconstitutional. If the court determines it is constitutional, then I believe federalism is effectively dead. The fact that it will pass congress with 100% republican votes in favor of it will be all the evidence anyone ever needed to know that republicans don't truly believe in limits on the federal government or states' rights. Well, to be clear they will still profess to believe in those things in response to democrat policies but it will be harder for them to do so with a straight face. Fortunately for republicans, their constituency doesn't require their justifications to pass the laugh test.

---

THIS is what finally signals to you that federalism is dead???? Again, selective (and unprincipled) outrage indeed.

Not requiring justification to pass a laugh test is only unique to one ideological segment of the country???? K.

---

Uh yeah, it proves once and for all the self-anointed party of federalism has given up all pretense. Do you somehow hold out hope that Democrats will safeguard federalism?

Of course this won't stop republicans from continuing to federalism-signal but what's new.

---

One can only hope that Our'in (the gangs) out gun Their'in (the Red Necks hooked on oxy) when they come from the South and the Fly Over States to visit Disneyland.

AunBear89 said:

---

If you don't know by now, then you are either willfully ignorant or just not very bright.

I'll let you decide which you are. Either way, you are Cheeto Benito's dream voter.

---

Just one will do. Any of them. Maybe you're right, and I've overlooked them.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

bearister said:

---

How do you lads like this sticky wicket?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-showdown/

---

I think this is unconstitutional. If the court determines it is constitutional, then I believe federalism is effectively dead. The fact that it will pass congress with 100% republican votes in favor of it will be all the evidence anyone ever needed to know that republicans don't truly believe in limits on the federal government or states' rights. Well, to be clear they will still profess to believe in those things in response to democrat policies but it will be harder for them to do so with a straight face. Fortunately for republicans, their constituency doesn't require their justifications to pass the laugh test.

---

THIS is what finally signals to you that federalism is dead???? Again, selective (and unprincipled) outrage indeed.

Not requiring justification to pass a laugh test is only unique to one ideological segment of the country???? K.

---

Uh yeah, it proves once and for all the self-anointed party of federalism has given up all pretense. Do you somehow hold out hope that Democrats will safeguard federalism?

Of course this won't stop republicans from continuing to federalism-signal but what's new.

---

Again, what is so profound about pointing out that parties will trample over their own espoused principles if it suits their political and ideological agenda?

But right, you're not actually principally in support of federalism at all costs, just not when it supports your politics. Both parties do this. ACA??? Individual mandate??? States can demand their residents to buy health insurace (Mass) and buy auto insurance (ALL) in ways the Fed, in theory, cannot. But continue on with the partisan hackery of selective and political outrage.

prospeCt said:

---

---

So, the only thing I can think of is how inspiring were both (a) the Raiders of those years (with a lot of unknown guys from who knows where playing their ass off); and (b) this unknown piano player, from who knows where, doing the same.

iwantwinners said:

---

But right, you're not actually principally in support of federalism at all costs, just not when it supports your politics. Both parties do this. ACA??? Individual mandate??? States can demand their residents to buy health insurace (Mass) and buy auto insurance (ALL) in ways the Fed, in theory, cannot. But continue on with the partisan hackery of selective and political outrage.

---

Please direct me to any quotes by me in favor of federalism. No one is denying the democrats are more generally in favor of federal power, but only the republicans have made it a foundational issue for them to which they continuously excoriate democrats.

I guess it's not unlike republicans paying lip service to fiscal conservatism when they invariably blow up the deficit when they have control.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

But right, you're not actually principally in support of federalism at all costs, just not when it supports your politics. Both parties do this. ACA??? Individual mandate??? States can demand their residents to buy health insurace (Mass) and buy auto insurance (ALL) in ways the Fed, in theory, cannot. But continue on with the partisan hackery of selective and political outrage.

---

Please direct me to any quotes by me in favor of federalism. No one is denying the democrats are more generally in favor of federal power, but only the republicans have made it a foundational issue for them to which they continuously excoriate democrats.

I guess it's not unlike republicans paying lip service to fiscal conservatism when they invariably blow up the deficit when they have control.

---

iwantwinners is too lazy to look up the quotes. Ha, I enjoy a good laugh.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

But right, you're not actually principally in support of federalism at all costs, just not when it supports your politics. Both parties do this. ACA??? Individual mandate??? States can demand their residents to buy health insurace (Mass) and buy auto insurance (ALL) in ways the Fed, in theory, cannot. But continue on with the partisan hackery of selective and political outrage.

---

Please direct me to any quotes by me in favor of federalism. No one is denying the democrats are more generally in favor of federal power, but only the republicans have made it a foundational issue for them to which they continuously excoriate democrats.

I guess it's not unlike republicans paying lip service to fiscal conservatism when they invariably blow up the deficit when they have control.

---

You're not saying anything profound or unique to one segment of the political landscape. Republicans are extreme hypocrites? Of course they are. Are they the only ones? Of course they're not.

Again, even when you are correct, it's disingenuous. Your outrage is selective and unprincipled. It's not that you detest being hypocritical, you detest when your opponent is being hypocritical.

iwantwinners said:

---

You're not saying anything profound or unique to one segment of the political landscape. Republicans are extreme hypocrites? Of course they are. Are they the only ones? Of course they're not.

Again, even when you are correct, it's disingenuous. Your outrage is selective and unprincipled. It's not that you detest being hypocritical, you detest when your opponent is being hypocritical.

---

Nice hysterics. You accuse me of lacking profundity before you make the prosaic claim that hypocrisy exists on both sides. Thanks for the enlightenment.

I'm not outraged at republican hypocrisy. I expect nothing less. That doesn't mean that calling republicans to task for federalism-signaling when they are doing the bidding of their masters is inappropriate.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

You're not saying anything profound or unique to one segment of the political landscape. Republicans are extreme hypocrites? Of course they are. Are they the only ones? Of course they're not.

Again, even when you are correct, it's disingenuous. Your outrage is selective and unprincipled. It's not that you detest being hypocritical, you detest when your opponent is being hypocritical.

---

Nice hysterics. You accuse me of lacking profundity before you make the prosaic claim that hypocrisy exists on both sides. Thanks for the enlightenment.

I'm not outraged at republican hypocrisy. I expect nothing less. That doesn't mean that calling republicans to task for federalism-signaling when they are doing the bidding of their masters is inappropriate.

---

no, it's disingenuous as a critique because it's selective outrage. Like when Faux News ramps up the selective outrage machine not because they are principally appalled but because it's a vehicle to vent their frustrations at the opposing political ideology. The majority of the OT board is Faux News, but in reverse.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

You're not saying anything profound or unique to one segment of the political landscape. Republicans are extreme hypocrites? Of course they are. Are they the only ones? Of course they're not.

Again, even when you are correct, it's disingenuous. Your outrage is selective and unprincipled. It's not that you detest being hypocritical, you detest when your opponent is being hypocritical.

---

Nice hysterics. You accuse me of lacking profundity before you make the prosaic claim that hypocrisy exists on both sides. Thanks for the enlightenment.

I'm not outraged at republican hypocrisy. I expect nothing less. That doesn't mean that calling republicans to task for federalism-signaling when they are doing the bidding of their masters is inappropriate.

---

That's fine. All you are saying is that you don't actually have principles and morals, but you have political leanings. You call out Republicans for one behavior but you abstain from doing so when Democrats are doing the same. Impressive and inspiring.

I like how unit2sucks has been accused of hypocrisy by 2 people now, without providing an example.

dajo9 said:

---

I like how unit2sucks has been accused of hypocrisy by 2 people now, without providing an example.

---

Studies show that 9 out of 10 unhinged conservatives believe that you can't accuse Republicans of hypocrisy because feelings.

Even though Trump favored gun control for years before he ran for president, sources close to him think there's no chance he goes there now:

Trump viscerally felt the reaction from his crowds during the campaign when he gave full-throated pitches for gun rights.
And no organization stuck by Trump like the NRA did. The group spent millions helping elect him, and kept spending even after so many others abandoned him in the wake of the "Access Hollywood" tape.
Trump remembers that.
Bottom line: There's no way especially not in an election year that Trump is going to alienate the Republican base by backflipping on the Second Amendment. He instinctively knows his voters would never forgive him. Axios




https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/16/americans-age-to-buy-ar15-assault-rifle-mass-shootings?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trump-a-playboy-model-and-a-system-for-concealing-infidelity-national-enquirer-karen-mcdougal

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

So you're saying the Trump voters are aligned with most sane people.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I like how unit2sucks has been accused of hypocrisy by 2 people now, without providing an example.

---

Studies show that 9 out of 10 unhinged conservatives believe that you can't accuse Republicans of hypocrisy because feelings.

---

10 out of 10 liberals are unhinged, have no self-awareness and don't believe any of the nonsense they parrot.

What kind of human being uses a man who served his country, spent years in the Hanoi Hilton, has been a member of Congress for 34 years, and is now dying of a glioblastoma, as a verbal punching bag?

Donald Trump will go down as the biggest con-man in American history.

On that theme, I've heard David Cay Johnston (professor of law at Syracuse and author of a 2016 biography on Trump) via random clicks on YouTube. He's an enjoyable listen and offers good insights on Trump before his current life as president.

This is well over a year old, but is good background listening while doing chores around the house.

This board is like Republicans circa 2009 grappling with the earth shattering reality that Obama was president. No substance, nothing but character arguments.

iwantwinners said:

---

This board is like Republicans circa 2009 grappling with the earth shattering reality that Obama was president. No substance, nothing but character arguments.

---

Not really. Anti-Obama Republican arguments then were birtherism, Muslimism, not-experienced-enoughism, liberalism, tax-and-spendism. If I'm missing any legitimate character arguments made then, please remind me of my oversights.

Some anti-Trump arguments now are character arguments, and some are meritorious, wouldn't you agree? Some are more than mere character arguments and cross the line into potentially criminal. And I would argue that even the merely-character arguments are substantive. This is the POTUS we're talking about, not a pirate, organized crime leader or porn magnate.

What will Republicans do when the inmates are running the asylum?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cpac-panelist-laments-conservatives-support-for-trump-roy-moore-despite/ar-BBJxfi7?li=BBnb7Kz

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nra-lashes-out-at-boycott-movement-as-united-delta-and-other-corporations-cut-ties/ar-BBJx07h?li=BBnbfcL

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/michael-steele-spars-with-cpac-head-over-officials-race-comment-what-the-hell/ar-BBJx1N0?li=BBnbfcL

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/us/politics/dana-rohrabacher-putin-trump-kremlin-under-fire.html

This is a disturbing conversation on the part of the conservatives in the Republican party. When you are having to explain your Communication Director's comments, you are losing the argument.

The character arguments against Trump holds up because they're clearly getting in the way of governing. Character flaws that lead to real mistakes are a real issue of concern.

There's the case with Trump's tweeting. It's sheer craziness from a policy perspective and communication perspective. There was a great write up about what happens when Trump tweets in the middle of the night, and it's not good.

Basically, the WH staff crafts/research policies and legislation, which takes time, maneuvering, adjustment and lots of coordination with legal teams, policy teams and everyone. It's slow and sometimes cumbersome.

Then Dotard tweets and metaphorically craps on the whole deal because now the policy team have to adjust all communications and policy to align with Trump tweet, to cover politics of the deal and make the talking points work.

This is about as a s s backwards as you can get. These staffers work hard with arcane rules and politics and Trump tweets and they start all over, or must adjust on the fly, under the gun.

The character arguments against Trump are legit. They keep him from governing effectively, and when you consider a NUKE...it's down right scary.

Another Bear said:

---

The character arguments against Trump holds up because they're clearly getting in the way of governing. Character flaws that lead to real mistakes are a real issue of concern.

There's the case with Trump's tweeting. It's sheer craziness from a policy perspective and communication perspective. There was a great write up about what happens when Trump tweets in the middle of the night, and it's not good.

Basically, the WH staff crafts/research policies and legislation, which takes time, maneuvering, adjustment and lots of coordination with legal teams, policy teams and everyone. It's slow and sometimes cumbersome.

Then Dotard tweets and metaphorically craps on the whole deal because now the policy team have to adjust all communications and policy to align with Trump tweet, to cover politics of the deal and make the talking points work.

This is about as a s s backwards as you can get. These staffers work hard with arcane rules and politics and Trump tweets and they start all over, or must adjust on the fly, under the gun.

The character arguments against Trump are legit. They keep him from governing effectively, and when you consider a NUKE...it's down right scary.

---

I just read my post, to which you responded. It wasn't very well written. Character matters for the POTUS. He is our leader. I don't want an a-hole undeserving of the position in there. It annoys me when idiotic a-holes ascend to positions they don't (in my view) deserve. That is all.

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

The character arguments against Trump holds up because they're clearly getting in the way of governing. Character flaws that lead to real mistakes are a real issue of concern.

There's the case with Trump's tweeting. It's sheer craziness from a policy perspective and communication perspective. There was a great write up about what happens when Trump tweets in the middle of the night, and it's not good.

Basically, the WH staff crafts/research policies and legislation, which takes time, maneuvering, adjustment and lots of coordination with legal teams, policy teams and everyone. It's slow and sometimes cumbersome.

Then Dotard tweets and metaphorically craps on the whole deal because now the policy team have to adjust all communications and policy to align with Trump tweet, to cover politics of the deal and make the talking points work.

This is about as a s s backwards as you can get. These staffers work hard with arcane rules and politics and Trump tweets and they start all over, or must adjust on the fly, under the gun.

The character arguments against Trump are legit. They keep him from governing effectively, and when you consider a NUKE...it's down right scary.

---

I just read my post, to which you responded. It wasn't very well written. Character matters for the POTUS. He is our leader. I don't want an a-hole undeserving of the position in there. It annoys me when idiotic a-holes ascend to positions they don't (in my view) deserve. That is all.

---

It's not Reverand or Pastor, it's President. If character matters, you must have had outrage your whole life over presidential winners. Unless there is a double standard or something.

One thing is clear: the American electorate is fickle, and they vote primarily on character scaled with one or two issues they find important. I thought Trump was going to lose in an epic landslide because of this. I was shocked he won. I underestimated the cultural resentment and the degree to which the social justice movement rhetoric alienated so many (in their minds).

iwantwinners said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

The character arguments against Trump holds up because they're clearly getting in the way of governing. Character flaws that lead to real mistakes are a real issue of concern.

There's the case with Trump's tweeting. It's sheer craziness from a policy perspective and communication perspective. There was a great write up about what happens when Trump tweets in the middle of the night, and it's not good.

Basically, the WH staff crafts/research policies and legislation, which takes time, maneuvering, adjustment and lots of coordination with legal teams, policy teams and everyone. It's slow and sometimes cumbersome.

Then Dotard tweets and metaphorically craps on the whole deal because now the policy team have to adjust all communications and policy to align with Trump tweet, to cover politics of the deal and make the talking points work.

This is about as a s s backwards as you can get. These staffers work hard with arcane rules and politics and Trump tweets and they start all over, or must adjust on the fly, under the gun.

The character arguments against Trump are legit. They keep him from governing effectively, and when you consider a NUKE...it's down right scary.

---

I just read my post, to which you responded. It wasn't very well written. Character matters for the POTUS. He is our leader. I don't want an a-hole undeserving of the position in there. It annoys me when idiotic a-holes ascend to positions they don't (in my view) deserve. That is all.

---

It's not Reverand or Pastor, it's President. If character matters, you must have had outrage your whole life over presidential winners. Unless there is a double standard or something.

One thing is clear: the American electorate is fickle, and they vote primarily on character scaled with one or two issues they find important. I thought Trump was going to lose in an epic landslide because of this. I was shocked he won. I underestimated the cultural resentment and the degree to which the social justice movement rhetoric alienated so many (in their minds).

---

It's an utter leap of faith on your part to say I have had outrage my whole life over presidential winners. You're projecting on to me something you can't possibly know anything about.

One need not be guilty of a "double standard" to have a higher level of disdain for Trump's character. He is a contemptible human being, beyond the pale, and far worse than anyone else we've been forced to endure. Does he have any personally redeeming leadership qualities? Is he humble, empathetic, visionary, thoughtful, driven, introspective, organized, intelligent, inspiring, curious, selfless or fair? Does he ever see beyond his own personal aggrandizement, enrichment or narcissistic ego-feeding? Is he even truthful most of the time? Can you name even one admirable leadership quality? The guy has shown himself to be a racist, a misogynist, a compulsive and serial liar, and a complete narcissistic ******. He's virtually a charicature of a guy you'd love to hate. Are any of the other presidents in your lifetime nearly as bad as Trump, character-wise? Which ones and why? That's a serious question because it boggles my mind to be accused of a double standard here.

One can be thoughtful and conservative and still be critical of Trump's character. We don't have to try to defend his character for the sake of defending rational conservative thought. Trump is neither rational nor conservative. He's a false prophet and a snake in the grass. You're better off just pivoting to a defense of rational conservative thought and leaving Trump out of it.

Character matters because we can't unite behind a leader we don't like and don't respect. A leader needs to be able to unite his body politic, no? Character matters because it helps to prevent us from electing a Hitler or a Stalin or a Putin or a Kim or a David Duke as our leader. Clearly that is an exaggeration - Trump is not as bad as any of the aforementioned - but only to make my point.

iwantwinners said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

You're not saying anything profound or unique to one segment of the political landscape. Republicans are extreme hypocrites? Of course they are. Are they the only ones? Of course they're not.

Again, even when you are correct, it's disingenuous. Your outrage is selective and unprincipled. It's not that you detest being hypocritical, you detest when your opponent is being hypocritical.

---

Nice hysterics. You accuse me of lacking profundity before you make the prosaic claim that hypocrisy exists on both sides. Thanks for the enlightenment.

I'm not outraged at republican hypocrisy. I expect nothing less. That doesn't mean that calling republicans to task for federalism-signaling when they are doing the bidding of their masters is inappropriate.

---

no, it's disingenuous as a critique because it's selective outrage. Like when Faux News ramps up the selective outrage machine not because they are principally appalled but because it's a vehicle to vent their frustrations at the opposing political ideology. The majority of the OT board is Faux News, but in reverse.

---

I don't think you make up the majority.

drizzlybears brother said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

You're not saying anything profound or unique to one segment of the political landscape. Republicans are extreme hypocrites? Of course they are. Are they the only ones? Of course they're not.

Again, even when you are correct, it's disingenuous. Your outrage is selective and unprincipled. It's not that you detest being hypocritical, you detest when your opponent is being hypocritical.

---

Nice hysterics. You accuse me of lacking profundity before you make the prosaic claim that hypocrisy exists on both sides. Thanks for the enlightenment.

I'm not outraged at republican hypocrisy. I expect nothing less. That doesn't mean that calling republicans to task for federalism-signaling when they are doing the bidding of their masters is inappropriate.

---

no, it's disingenuous as a critique because it's selective outrage. Like when Faux News ramps up the selective outrage machine not because they are principally appalled but because it's a vehicle to vent their frustrations at the opposing political ideology. The majority of the OT board is Faux News, but in reverse.

---

I don't think you make up the majority.

---

A couple of things (in reverse order):

(1) I think iwantwinners POINT is that he is not only not in the majority on the board but is heartily opposed to it.

(2) As to iwantwinners' express point, I truly believe that he does not see or understand the depths of the Revulsion Trump elicits with the endless list of "character flaws" which have been pointed out almost everywhere but Fox News. He should read David Cay Johnston's writings on the subject.

To me, these "character flaws" are so sickening they fall into the category of pure evil; and, as to the Republicans' endless false equivalence arguments, the difference is that the "reasons" that many Republicans and other rightists have/had for hating Obama (and I believe that their hatred is sincere) really don't add up to anything that a moral person could, in good conscience, sign up to.

Obama perfect? Obviously not.

But evil to the degree specified by the undeniable facts stated most powerfully (and calmly) in Mr. Johnston's book? Gibst mir ein f___kin' Break.