US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1480

On May 23 2019 05:41 Danglars wrote:
I said they’re making a mistake in impeachment talk and going after Barr. The rest is just commentary on the investigation into FISA warrants and the counterintelligence investigation. You really should spend more time reading my posts than the time you spend (mis)typing my name.

On May 23 2019 05:41 Danglars wrote:
I said they’re making a mistake in impeachment talk and going after Barr. The rest is just commentary on the investigation into FISA warrants and the counterintelligence investigation. You really should spend more time reading my posts than the time you spend (mis)typing my name.

On May 23 2019 03:41 xDaunt wrote:
Democrats are making a big mistake doubling down on this investigation nonsense. First and foremost, the truth on what really happened is coming out at an ever-increasing pace, and is only going to accelerate further with declassification beginning in the next week. Second, Trump's meticulous setting of the stage for what's about to happen is starting to pay dividends. More and more Americans are waking up to the possibility that their government has done something horrible in going after Trump, and now a sizable majority (62-38) support investigating what happened. This press conference stunt of his was obviously pre-planned and is designed to only further preparing the public for what's about to come out. Simply put, this is an issue that Democrats will not win on, and by needlessly picking this fight with Trump, they are setting themselves up to lose hugely on it. They've chosen a very bad limb to be out on.

On May 23 2019 05:57 NewSunshine wrote:

I mean, xDaunt literally said "Democrats are making a big mistake doubling down on this investigation nonsense." Your posts are going hand in hand. Not every claim people make needs to be contentious, or a debate to be had. Sometimes people just call something what it is and it doesn't need to be argued.

On May 23 2019 06:06 Rasalased wrote:


I am not asking you the question, because obviously you wouldn't give a honest answer. I am asking those that still bother to read your posts.

On May 23 2019 06:36 Danglars wrote:

Apparently, you can quote another’s posts to prove the claim. Good to know.

I think it’s wise to find a quote of mine if you’re actually wanting to ask me some question in light of former posts. This is just laziness on your part.

On May 23 2019 04:23 Acrofales wrote:
I apologize. Didn't really want to get into that. What i meant was that according to our culture there are certain rules that we should follow in order to behave morally. These are generally codified as law, and we have a government to stop people from "behaving badly", or punish them if they do. I wanted to make it a bit more explicit by invoking judeo-christian values, but clearly we disagree on what these are, so just ignore that. All we really need is that "bad" behaviour exists, and our government is empowered to stop people from behaving badly.

Now you say that it is entirely okay for the government to empower specific people to act badly towards people of other nations. And not even because the people of the other nation are acting badly themselves, but merely because it is "in the nation's self-interest" to do so. And this is justified, because these people are "not of our nation" and thus not protected by our laws. I agree that this may be legally justified, because there are indeed no supra-national laws, nor any entity capable of enforcing them (at least not on countries with the clout of the USA).

But legal justification is somewhat irrelevant, when we are discussing what the government "ought" to do. You seem to think that *everything* is justified as long as the nation can get away with it. That seems strange. Is it justified at a personal level too? Am I justified in doing *anything* as long as I can get away with it? Sure, I, Acrofales, am legally bound by the laws of my country, but you seem to think that as long as I don't get caught, I am totally justified in doing anything I please. And what I *ought* to do is entirely irrelevant.

Now at a personal level that seems to lead to a particularly unpleasant distopia, and I don't really see how that doesn't extend to a national level as well. But I might again have misunderstood something.

On May 23 2019 06:37 NewSunshine wrote:

So I take it from your insistence on how wrong I am that you don't think Democrats are making a mistake when they bring up the investigations into Trump?

Or maybe you don't have a strong opinion. That's allowed. But you should also understand that people get irritated with you when you don't just say it, and instead use it as an opportunity to dunk on someone.

On May 23 2019 02:51 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Trump walked out on Schumer and Pelosi after 3 minutes in their planned infrastructure talks. He threw a fit and won't work with them until they stop investigating him. So nothing will happen on infrastructure. He just refuses to do his job.

He also added a No Collusion No Obstruction info graphic to his presidential speaking pedestal when he went to the Rose Garden to complain about how harsh he's been treated.



NYT

He wanted to advance legislation but Pelosi said something terrible so now he can't do it.

Democrats are countering that it was a planned walkout given the pre-printed infographics and that he never had a infrastructure plan in the first place. It's kind of sad that 'my feelings were hurt' is what he thinks will save him on this.

On May 22 2019 22:21 xDaunt wrote:

Iamthedave is right. I asked the wrong question. Which president(s) do you consider to be moral and why?

As for my answers about Trump, I see the presidency as being somewhat inherently amoral. It’s a position in which a person is called upon to wield vast power for the benefit of the nation. This issue becomes particularly acute in the realm of foreign policy. So for me, the best way to gauge whether a president is being a moral is whether he is faithfully discharging his executive duties in accordance with the law.

On May 23 2019 08:45 JimmiC wrote:


So you're not going to answer the question and instead be faux offended? Because Newsunshine was very clear on his question, so either you were misrepresented or you were not. Enough with the "I didn't say that or that" bullshit, take a position or don't post.

On May 23 2019 07:17 Danglars wrote:

I personally get annoyed when somebody says "Dangers are so determined to tell us that the Democrats are making a mistake in talking about Trump, money laundering, and Russia" when I haven't said that. Would you admit that I haven't said that? Just for the sake of truthfulness in the thread. You can always ask what I think, instead of pretending you heard me say this somewhere. When you do the latter, of course I'm going to ask for a retraction and admission of fault, so that people get in the habit of asking me instead of assuming I said something I didn't.

On May 23 2019 08:45 JimmiC wrote:


So you're not going to answer the question and instead be faux offended? Because Newsunshine was very clear on his question, so either you were misrepresented or you were not. Enough with the "I didn't say that or that" bullshit, take a position or don't post.

On May 23 2019 08:54 NewSunshine wrote:

I understand that most people think he and xDaunt echo each other, and it's not for no reason. The initial question was about why the two of them seem to think it was a mistake for Democrats to drill into the various investigations into Trump. Danglars replied, offended that he would be lumped in with xDaunt for some reason. Which is odd, because while I can describe differences in how they argue/converse, I can think of precious little things they actually disagree on. Danglars could have cleared up any misconceptions by saying "nah, I don't think that and didn't say that", and we wouldn't be having this conversation still. Instead he tells us we're wrong, won't tell us how we're wrong, and calling people lazy because they haven't figured out his position, which he refuses to state.

For me, it's simple. He either agrees with Daunt or he doesn't. If he does, then I don't see why he's doing this. If he doesn't, all he had to do was say so.