Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

Options
1…7172747677…331

Comments

  • Options
    #2192
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,454 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Mainstream liberal news media in the States are really just political activists pedaling in propaganda.


    https://twitter.com/Project_Veritas/status/1258046139707936769

    Jesus, that twitter stream makes Gemmaroids look like the BBC


  • Options
    #2193
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    would they ? would the democrats rush through candiadates that are not qualified for the job? have they a history of that?
    ABSOLUTELY!!!

    Things have changed in recent years. In the past it required a 60-vote Senate vote on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, so any nominations had to be extremely qualified. But in 2013, in a pure political move, the Democrats went nuclear and changed the rules requiring only a majority vote. Unfortunately for democrats they have now reaped what they sowed.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #2194
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    ABSOLUTELY!!!

    Things have changed in recent years. In the past it required a 60-vote Senate vote on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, so any nominations had to be extremely qualified. But in 2013, in a pure political move, the Democrats went nuclear and changed the rules requiring only a majority vote. Unfortunately for democrats they have now reaped what they sowed.

    so you have some examples of judges rated unqualified that the democrats rushed through?


  • Options
    #2195
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I think the republicans should have at least gone through the process. Using delay tactics in the hearings they could have drug it beyond the election... that’s what democrats would have done. I think it was wrong of them to not even allowing him the process. It will come back to bite republicans in the a$$ sometime in the future... and it should.

    Why do you think that's what the Dems would have done? Did they ever do anything like this is the past?
    But I can somewhat understand why republicans did it. Unlike democrats who vote on their political ideals when it comes to SCOTUS picks instead of the qualifications of the nominee, republicans ultimately vote on the qualifications of the nomination. And the Senate GOP would have confirmed Garland if a vote were taken.

    Again, have you any evidence for this claim that the Dems only vote on ideological basis?

    I agree the Senate GOP would have confirmed Garland if McConnell hadn't have pulled a fast one. It was a disgrace, don't you agree?

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #2196
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    so you have some examples of judges rated unqualified that the democrats rushed through?
    No, I don't and I don't intend to investigate the many Obama nominees the Democrats rushed through.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2197
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Brian? wrote: »
    Why do you think that's what the Dems would have done? Did they ever do anything like this is the past?



    Again, have you any evidence for this claim that the Dems only vote on ideological basis?

    I agree the Senate GOP would have confirmed Garland if McConnell hadn't have pulled a fast one. It was a disgrace, don't you agree?
    Look up the term 'Borked.'

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #2198
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    No, I don't and I don't intend to investigate the many Obama nominees the Democrats rushed through.

    so you will retract your claim that the democrats have the same thing the GOP are doing now and rushing through unqualified candidates?


  • Options
    #2199
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    so you will retract your claim that the democrats have the same thing the GOP are doing now and rushing through unqualified candidates?
    No. I don’t recall them right now, some 7 years later. Tell you what… Give me a list of every Obama nominated judge that was rushed through, that was considered ‘controversial’ at the time, and I’ll take a look at them.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #2200
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Look up the term 'Borked.'

    Done.

    It's not really an answer to my post.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #2201
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,597 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    notobtuse wrote: »
    No. I don’t recall them right now, some 7 years later. Tell you what… Give me a list of every Obama nominated judge that was rushed through, that was considered ‘controversial’ at the time, and I’ll take a look at them.

    So you make a claim, and when called out on that claim you ask others to do your work for you to prove your claim :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2202
    statesaver
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭statesaver


    Democrats need to get rid of Biden.

    It's embarrassing. Trump will destroy him in the debates.

    https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1257858123576029184


  • Options
    #2203
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,454 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    statesaver wrote: »
    Democrats need to get rid of Biden.

    It's embarrassing. Trump will destroy him in the debates.

    https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1257858123576029184

    Jesus, its like whack-a-mole


  • Options
    #2204
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    statesaver wrote: »
    Democrats need to get rid of Biden.

    It's embarrassing. Trump will destroy him in the debates.

    https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1257858123576029184
    Yeah, they should dump him, but I'm hoping they stick with him. The question is should Trump be kind and understanding towards the old fool in the debates or go for the jugular?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #2205
    statesaver
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭statesaver


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Yeah, they should dump him, but I'm hoping they stick with him. The question is should Trump be kind and understanding towards the old fool in the debates or go for the jugular?

    Trump needs to say feck all and watch Biden make an unelectable fool of himself.


    When is the first debate on ?


  • Options
    #2206
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    statesaver wrote: »
    Trump needs to say feck all and watch Biden make an unelectable fool of himself.


    When is the first debate on ?
    Way too early. Democrats don't even know who their candidate will be yet.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #2207
    amdublin
    Registered Users Posts: 20,653 ✭✭✭✭amdublin


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Way too early. Democrats don't even know who their candidate will be yet.

    Today I learnt about something called "Alinsky's Rules for Radicals". You told me about it actually!

    I did a little research on it after you mentioned it in an earlier post today.

    Omg, it seems to me that you are totally following it rule for rule!!!! :o

    Good luck to you in your campaign ;)


  • Options
    #2208
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    No. I don’t recall them right now, some 7 years later. Tell you what… Give me a list of every Obama nominated judge that was rushed through, that was considered ‘controversial’ at the time, and I’ll take a look at them.

    you made the claim, you do the work to support it.


  • Options
    #2209
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    amdublin wrote: »
    Today I learnt about something called "Alinsky's Rules for Radicals". You told me about it actually!

    I did a little research on it after you mentioned it in an earlier post today.

    Omg, it seems to me that you are totally following it rule for rule!!!! :o

    Good luck to you in your campaign ;)
    LOL. Not following Alinsky’s rules. I’m utilizing my deprogramming training from back in the 70’s. I was a ‘certified’ deprogrammer for kids that got hooked up with brainwashing religious cults. Hare krishna cults were my specialty. I figure the same deprogramming principles could apply to help out the unfortunate individuals here brainwashed by Leftist ideals. Gotta keep my training sharp, ya know. Believe it or not I was a hippie back in the old days... long hair, hippie clothes, bare feet, liberal ideals, protested the Vietnam war, handed out Leftist flyers, lived on a commune, went to Woodstock, and even hooked up with one of the girls from Charlie Manson’s family for a short while. If you ever wonder what happens to old hippies in the US... well some of them turn into diehard republicans, after growing up. :p

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #2210
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    statesaver wrote: »
    When is the first debate on ?

    Sep 29th in Indiana.

    Second debate is in Michigan on October 15th and the final debate is on Oct 22nd in Nashville.

    VP Debate in on Oct 7th.


  • Options
    #2211
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Sep 29th in Indiana.

    Second debate is in Michigan on October 15th and the final debate is on Oct 22nd in Nashville.

    VP Debate in on Oct 7th.
    Really? I didn't know any were set. Who is moderating them?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2212
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Don't think that's been decided yet:

    https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/presidential-debate-planning-proceeds-despite-virus-worries/2276941/


  • Options
    #2213
    hetuzozaho
    Registered Users Posts: 2,840 ✭✭✭hetuzozaho


    notobtuse wrote: »
    even hooked up with one of the girls from Charlie Manson’s family for a short while.

    Was she part of the family at the time or had left?


  • Options
    #2214
    Realt Dearg Sec
    Registered Users Posts: 10,884 ✭✭✭✭Realt Dearg Sec


    hetuzozaho wrote: »
    Was she part of the family at the time or had left?

    She's fictional, so, just pick whichever.


  • Options
    #2215
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    hetuzozaho wrote: »
    Was she part of the family at the time or had left?

    It was several years after the trial of Manson family ended. She was not involved with the murders. I didn't believe her at first until she pulled back her bangs exposing the 'X' cut in her forehead.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #2216
    Realt Dearg Sec
    Registered Users Posts: 10,884 ✭✭✭✭Realt Dearg Sec


    notobtuse wrote: »
    It was several years after the trial of Manson family ended. She was not involved with the murders. I didn't believe her at first until she pulled back her bangs exposing the 'X' cut in her forehead.

    Ah lads, come on, he's basically making fun of your credulity here.


  • Options
    #2217
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »
    Ah lads, come on, he's basically making fun of your credulity here.
    “Credulity”... Great word, but what do I care if you or anyone thinks it’s true or not? There's no way to prove it all. I’ve never told anyone the entire story of that wild, bizarre and sordid month in the summer of ’74 and I don’t intend to here. Hell, I doubt anybody would believe the whole story... I wouldn’t if it was told to me. But I lived and survived it. Sex, booze, drugs, Bavarian music, friends, parties, jealousy, four large garbage bags of festival beer tickets that never made it to the incinerator, quick thinking, a psycho, murder, police, leaches, motorcycle gang and the Manson family girl... Oh, my. But someday the story might be an interesting basis for someone thinking of making a retro ‘Dazed and Confused’ type movie.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #2218
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,859 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Yeah, they should dump him, but I'm hoping they stick with him. The question is should Trump be kind and understanding towards the old fool in the debates or go for the jugular?

    Oh he'll go to town on him. Joe will be good party lining it but as soon as theres conflict and quick retorts needed he'll be shown up. Badly.

    Whats this Manson girl post Im seeing? Missed that.


  • Options
    #2219
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    The Nal wrote: »
    Oh he'll go to town on him. Joe will be good party lining it but as soon as theres conflict and quick retorts needed he'll be shown up. Badly.

    Whats this Manson girl post Im seeing? Missed that.

    Did you see Biden v Bernie? He was fine.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #2220
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,859 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Brian? wrote: »
    Did you see Biden v Bernie? He was fine.

    He was. Because it was two sensible men civilly discussing politics and important stuff like healthcare. The "nastiest" stuff was about Bernie outspending him and Biden talking about cutting social security. A debate the way they should be.

    Trump is going to bring up Biden being a rapist, Biden being senile, Hunter Biden banging his brothers widow and so on. Different playing field.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2221
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Brian? wrote: »
    Did you see Biden v Bernie? He was fine.
    No pressure, no major challenges from Bernie, and sympathetic moderators. Biden won’t experience that in the debate against Trump. Did you see Biden’s interview with Mika on MSNBC? Hard to believe he had weeks to prepare and that was his performance? It's like he had absolutely no clue someone at the University of Delaware could simply do a computer search on just someone's name in the records kept there.

    I’ll almost feel sorry for him going into the general election debates... if he makes it that far. What do you think the chances are the biased moderators will cheat again and give him the questions ahead of time like they did Hillary?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement