Page 2 of 2
Re: So it was a “witch hunt”!
Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:22 am
by ousdahl
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 7:26 am
twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:38 am
dolomite wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 12:11 am
All nothing burgers!! Telling someone to lie is not a crime, directing aides not to disclose notes is not a crime, telling the Ruskies less pressure is not a crime, Trump tower Moscow was never built. You’re really reaching there twocoach.
You asked me what I thought was "unpresidential", not what I thought should warrant criminal charges. I think the bar for the leader of our country should be significantly higher than "criminal".
Especially when that president isn't from your preferred political party.
Amirite?
Could the democratic party even produce such a candidate/president though?
if we learned anything from 2016, it's that while republicans are willing to hold their nose and march in line no matter what, dems are willing to cannibalize their own party's chances if their candidate is of questionable character, or ideology, or simply not the one they wanted.
if they were, then Hillary would be president right now, and dolomite would be clamoring on about how we can't possibly have enough special investigations to get to the bottom of determining the width of potus's ankles.
Re: So it was a “witch hunt”!
Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:25 am
by ousdahl
(and don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of the democratic party either)
Re: So it was a “witch hunt”!
Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:58 am
by Deleted User 75
This was a unique election. With 2 unique candidates.
2 choice system results in occasionally having to choose between 2 shitty options.
Re: So it was a “witch hunt”!
Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:07 am
by DCHawk1
ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:22 am
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 7:26 am
twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:38 am
You asked me what I thought was "unpresidential", not what I thought should warrant criminal charges. I think the bar for the leader of our country should be significantly higher than "criminal".
Especially when that president isn't from your preferred political party.
Amirite?
Could the democratic party even produce such a candidate/president though?
if we learned anything from 2016, it's that while republicans are willing to hold their nose and march in line no matter what, dems are willing to cannibalize their own party's chances if their candidate is of questionable character, or ideology, or simply not the one they wanted.
if they were, then Hillary would be president right now, and dolomite would be clamoring on about how we can't possibly have enough special investigations to get to the bottom of determining the width of potus's ankles.
lulz
HiLLarY wOn thE PopULAr vOtE!
Pick an argument already.
Re: So it was a “witch hunt”!
Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:24 am
by ousdahl
bro I never said anything about the popular vote.
Re: So it was a “witch hunt”!
Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:24 am
by Geezer
Not mutually exclusive.
Re: So it was a “witch hunt”!
Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:58 am
by DCHawk1
Geezer wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:24 am
Not mutually exclusive.
Yes, actually. By definition.
Re: So it was a “witch hunt”!
Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:01 am
by dolomite
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 7:26 am
twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:38 am
dolomite wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 12:11 am
All nothing burgers!! Telling someone to lie is not a crime, directing aides not to disclose notes is not a crime, telling the Ruskies less pressure is not a crime, Trump tower Moscow was never built. You’re really reaching there twocoach.
You asked me what I thought was "unpresidential", not what I thought should warrant criminal charges. I think the bar for the leader of our country should be significantly higher than "criminal".
Especially when that president isn't from your preferred political party.
Amirite?
LOL
Re: So it was a “witch hunt”!
Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:12 am
by twocoach
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 7:26 am
twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:38 am
dolomite wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 12:11 am
All nothing burgers!! Telling someone to lie is not a crime, directing aides not to disclose notes is not a crime, telling the Ruskies less pressure is not a crime, Trump tower Moscow was never built. You’re really reaching there twocoach.
You asked me what I thought was "unpresidential", not what I thought should warrant criminal charges. I think the bar for the leader of our country should be significantly higher than "criminal".
Especially when that president isn't from your preferred political party.
Amirite?
As usual, no.
Re: So it was a “witch hunt”!
Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:44 am
by Deleted User 75
twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:12 am
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 7:26 am
twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:38 am
You asked me what I thought was "unpresidential", not what I thought should warrant criminal charges. I think the bar for the leader of our country should be significantly higher than "criminal".
Especially when that president isn't from your preferred political party.
Amirite?
As usual, no.
Neither of the 2 choices met that "bar".
Re: So it was a “witch hunt”!
Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 7:15 am
by twocoach
Then you have a different bar for presidential behavior than I do, I suppose. Repeatedly commanding employees to lie in order to obstruct a federal investigation is below my personal bar.
Re: So it was a “witch hunt”!
Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 7:35 am
by DCHawk1
So...you're saying you voted for Johnson?
Re: So it was a “witch hunt”!
Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:27 am
by TDub
DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 7:35 am
So...you're saying you voted for Johnson?
You arent allowed to admit that on this forum.
Re: So it was a “witch hunt”!
Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 4:19 pm
by Mjl
TDub wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:27 am
DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 7:35 am
So...you're saying you voted for Johnson?
You arent allowed to admit that on this forum.
Hey, I'm proud of my Johnson.
Um... My vote for Johnson.
Re: So it was a “witch hunt”!
Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 7:49 pm
by Deleted User 89
Re: So it was a “witch hunt”!
Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:17 pm
by DCHawk1
I mean...I hate to have to do this again, but we call this The Holder Precedent.
Re: So it was a “witch hunt”!
Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:34 am
by Shirley
DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:17 pm
I mean...I hate to have to do this
again, but we call this The Holder Precedent.
^^^
Re: So it was a “witch hunt”!
Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:46 am
by Deleted User 89
DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:17 pm
I mean...I hate to have to do this
again, but we call this The Holder Precedent.
and you tell me to try harder?
if you’re referencing the fast and furious gun-running debacle, then i agree that holder behaved poorly and should have faced repercussions
1) was he the first AG to obstruct, ever?
2) while bad, the fast and furious debacle isn’t anything like the current situation
Re: So it was a “witch hunt”!
Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:51 am
by Deleted User 89
i'm curious, DC, as to why you'd call it the Holder Precendent, unless you're just trying to be partisan with another bout of whataboutism
you just did so well in listing out former presidents that were "corrupt" in an attempt to prove that, some how, drumpf is no different than others that have come before him...even going so far as to claim that drumpf isn't just similar, but somehow exemplifies the rule (which would imply that a majority of presidents have been on his level of corruption)
Re: So it was a “witch hunt”!
Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:46 am
by DCHawk1
TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:51 am
i'm curious, DC, as to why you'd call it the Holder Precendent, unless you're just trying to be partisan with another bout of whataboutism
Holder was the first (and so far only) cabinet member to be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over subpoenaed documents.