What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?

WeAreNDHockey said:
But a former colleague of mine -- a woman who successfully enlightened me on some of my own issues where race/ethnicity was concerned -- says Abrams might be seen as too "ethnic" for some shall we say less open minded democratic-leaning voters. While not a litmus test or requirement to join with democrats like it is with republicans, let us remember a good number of people who might vote for the right people have some pretty wrong beliefs about people of color.
Click to expand...

They said the same sh*t about Obama. It worked out just fine.
 
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?

To counter the argument...we would look like hypocrites because we ripped Palin for the same thing.*

*Abrams is 100 times the Veep candidate Palin is but we are talking optics not context.
 
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?

mookie1995 said:
Minor? This would scare the living chit outta people.
Click to expand...

You don't get to say this stuff anymore after Dump.

Elections have consequences. Your party elected a toddler. That line of rhetoric is closed to Republicans forever.
 
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?

Handyman said:
To counter the argument...we would look like hypocrites because we ripped Palin for the same thing.*

*Abrams is 100 times the Veep candidate Palin is but we are talking optics not context.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but now that ****wad is President the narrative doesn't fly for either party.
 
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?

ScoobyDoo said:
Yeah, but now that ****wad is President the narrative doesn't fly for either party.
Click to expand...

Qualifications, character, experience, intelligence, and patriotism have all been eliminated as criteria.

All that remains is having a dong.
 
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?

Kepler said:
You don't get to say this stuff anymore after Dump.

Elections have consequences. Your party elected a toddler. That line of rhetoric is closed to Republicans forever.
Click to expand...
I honestly don’t think mookie is a righty.
 
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?

dxmnkd316 said:
I honestly don’t think mookie is a righty.
Click to expand...

He plays the field. In these times that's weak sauce. He's Max in The Sound of Music.

<img src="https://66.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md0f6mmWwS1rpe459o1_400.jpg" height=300>
 
bronconick said:
The only minor complaint would be her highest position of authority was State House minority leader and she'd be a heartbeat behind a 77 year old man to the Presidency
Click to expand...

I don’t think it’s minor. Certainly not disqualifying for me, but I think other candidates check off just as many boxes, if not more, than Abrams.
I was still curious/waiting for an answer on how Abrams was way more liberal than Kamala Harris, but, I guess I’ll be waiting for a while, or forever. 🤷🏻
 
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?

Lol

“ JUST IN: A gang of cybercriminals claimed in a post to the dark web on Friday that it had obtained documents on President Trump, and is threatening to release them and other hacked documents unless it receives a $42 million ransom.

The post reads: “There's an election race going on, and we found a ton of dirty laundry... And to you voters, we can let you know that after such a publication, you certainly don't want to see him as president.”

https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/498101-criminal-hacker-group-claims-to-have-trump-documents-asks-for-42-million
 
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
Lol

“ JUST IN: A gang of cybercriminals claimed in a post to the dark web on Friday that it had obtained documents on President Trump, and is threatening to release them and other hacked documents unless it receives a $42 million ransom.

The post reads: “There's an election race going on, and we found a ton of dirty laundry... And to you voters, we can let you know that after such a publication, you certainly don't want to see him as president.”

https://thehill.com/policy/cybersec...s-to-have-trump-documents-asks-for-42-million
Click to expand...

Let me guess...this will be paid with taxpayer money.
 
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?

Anticipating Phase Two of the Trumped Up “Obamagate”

Yet the president fails to say what the crime(s) might be. Instead, he seizes on the language, alludes to improprieties, and—increasingly—wields it all to tar his rival for the presidency, Joe Biden. Countering Trumpian disinformation campaigns like this one demands disentangling the threads that Trump has weaved into “Obamagate,” debunking the falsehoods that Trump is propagating—and, at the same time, acknowledging where there may in fact have been serious missteps during the previous administration.

That means acknowledging that there may well be a lurking truth to a serious allegation against former government officials in how they handled the counterintelligence file involving Michael Flynn. However, there is no evidence that those actions implicate President Barack Obama or Vice President Biden personally, or discredit the legitimacy of the investigations of Russia’s 2016 election interference, the investigation of Trump campaign associates’ support for the Kremlin’s effort, officials’ requests to “unmask” a U.S. person appearing in intelligence reports who turned out to be Flynn, the FBI’s decision to interview Flynn, or the Justice Department’s charging Flynn for lying to the FBI.
Click to expand...

To be fair...

That said, there has been a rush by many to say that no crime has been credibly alleged, and that no serious wrongdoing by former administration officials has been identified. That’s an oversight, and fails to grapple with a potential outcome: the prospect of well-founded criminal indictments against one or more former officials who leaked the content of the classified intercept of the Dec. 29, 2016 phone call between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Flynn’s identity in that communication.

As I’ll explain, the issue here is not limited to the initial leak by a senior government official to the journalist David Ignatius who revealed the Flynn-Kislyak phone call in the pages of the Washington Post on the evening of Jan. 12, 2017.
Click to expand...

However...

At bottom, the key point here is not allowing anyone, especially including the President of the United States and his attorney general, to convince the American public that there is any scandal beyond what may have happened with the leak. Trump and Barr can be counted on to run the same playbook as they have before –a kernel of actual misconduct will be distorted by the Trump team and their congressional and media allies to make it look like an array of other activities that were actually legitimate appear illegitimate. Most memorably, when the DOJ Inspector General found wrongdoing in the Carter Page FISA surveillance applications, Trump and Barr distorted the IG’s findings to try to attack the legitimacy of the Mueller investigation. For now, Trump and Barr’s effort to rewrite the history of Flynn’s lying to the FBI looks like it may hit a brick wall in Judge Emmet G. Sullivan’s courtroom. The question is whether their deception may yet succeed in the court of public opinion.

In the final analysis, “Obamagate” should be best understood as the scandal in which a president manufactured false accusations against former government officials, including his political rival, using the full power of the Justice Department and Kremlin-style information warfare tactics to orchestrate it.
Click to expand...

A lot of very good details in between to explain his summary and conclusions, but to not obliterate the page I didn't copy most of it.

I am aware that none of this will mean a hill of beans to #MAGA-heads that buy every word vomit Orange Droolius spews, but to anyone paying attention this should matter.
 
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">What could go wrong? <a href="https://t.co/zK2qkS2tjm">https://t.co/zK2qkS2tjm</a></p>— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonahDispatch/status/1261634665787658242?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 16, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Lots in our story on all that Trump is hurling at Biden—including a wave of F’book ads painting him as senile—and the president’s son is now suggesting the former VP is a pedophile >><a href="https://t.co/Kv570T5tVo">https://t.co/Kv570T5tVo</a> <a href="https://t.co/H33RrlOIdV">pic.twitter.com/H33RrlOIdV</a></p>— Jonathan Martin (@jmartNYT) <a href="https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/1261667255215108103?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 16, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top