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.

POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

SJHovey said:
I don't think we need to have "were they prosecuted" as the standard for whether people can question the actions of candidates or politicians. There have been a lot of politicians who have done a lot of sketchy things lately but have never been prosecuted for them. I don't see a lot of people on the left hesitating to call Bush II or Cheney terrible people or criminals, and as far as I know they've never been prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Fair, but don said he would lock her up, people chanted "lock her up", etc etc.

And still nothing. With all of those people wanting to send her to jail, you'd think it would be an easy, slam dunk, prosecution, wouldn't you?

Or is it just another example of Republicans having the worst lawyers this country has ever seen?

The worst part about using that as "she'd be a bad president" is that none of it has to do with policy. They are just character things that don shares (vigorously) with her.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

SJHovey said:
I don't think we need to have "were they prosecuted" as the standard for whether people can question the actions of candidates or politicians. There have been a lot of politicians who have done a lot of sketchy things lately but have never been prosecuted for them. I don't see a lot of people on the left hesitating to call Bush II or Cheney terrible people or criminals, and as far as I know they've never been prosecuted.
Click to expand...

So, now we're equivocating Hillary and GW/Cheney? Really? Is that where we want to go? Those two weren't even investigated for their war crimes. Hillary has been continuously investigated for decades. She was brought in to the House, under oath, and testified for over 10 hours. It was the GOP's wet dream and what did they get her on? NOTHING.

I mean this is why the right can't win any arguments. Everything argued is either a logistical fallacy or a false equivalency. Give me some meat.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

ericredaxe said:
So you assume Brent is a liar? That is a pretty heavy accusation...
Click to expand...

How did you possibly get that from what he posted?

Asking for a reason is not accusing of lying. That is some serious twisted logic.

BTW not everyone that argues with you is a lefty...just an FYI.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
They are drafting an exec order to leave NAFTA.
Click to expand...

Maybe this is all for the best. All the wingnut idiocy gets tried out, goes down in flames, and then even though the eejits will keep crying for it (because it enriches them personally) the rest of the country will say "been there, done that."
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Handyman said:
How did you possibly get that from what he posted?

Asking for a reason is not accusing of lying. That is some serious twisted logic.

BTW not everyone that argues with you is a lefty...just an FYI.
Click to expand...

Very much "if you are not with me, you are against me" kind of a reply.

Which I find pretty funny. Given some of the recourse coming from some of them.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Brent got called to the carpet (deservedly so) coz he was pretending to be in the "middle" and everyone could easily see through it.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

ScoobyDoo said:
So, now we're equivocating Hillary and GW/Cheney? Really? Is that where we want to go? Those two weren't even investigated for their war crimes. Hillary has been continuously investigated for decades. She was brought in to the House, under oath, and testified for over 10 hours. It was the GOP's wet dream and what did they get her on? NOTHING.

I mean this is why the right can't win any arguments. Everything argued is either a logistical fallacy or a false equivalency. Give me some meat.
Click to expand...
I'm not equivocating anyone with anyone. In fact, this seems to be the default accusation leveled whenever someone can't think of a real response.

What I posted is that a person doesn't need to be convicted of something before people have every right to be critical of their actions or motives.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Wisko McBadgerton said:
Yesterday, the headlines were that Trump was proposing to cut the $8.25 million Office of Global Women's Issues among other things and it was Disaster! Today Ivanka is putting together $100 million plus in private funding to invest in women and it's Disaster!


I kinda like Ivanka and here's why-- I have a very smart and very liberal friend who has worked at the very top levels of a half-dozen or more major clothing retailers over the years. She also worked directly for Ivanka a few years back as a VP for a while. She maintains that Ivanka was the best CEO she has ever worked for (which is saying a lot) and can only say what an exceptional boss, and what an intelligent and kind person she is. Ivanka is naturally going to get murdered over every little thing because Trump, but personally, going by my friend's endorsement, I'm glad she's in the room with a voice.

I'd like to perhaps wait and see what the entire plan is before shooting it down.
Click to expand...

She has no voice...what are her supposed pet projects? She supposedly supports Planned Parenthood and the Environment...either Daddy is ignoring her or she is full of it ;)

I am sure Ivanka is a great businesswoman and good for her that is awesome. (leaving out the slave labor charges for now) But she holds no sway over her dad and to me serves no purpose in the WH. That isnt a knock on her as a person, just on her as an advisor to the President.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

SJHovey said:
I'm not equivocating anyone with anyone. In fact, this seems to be the default accusation leveled whenever someone can't think of a real response.

What I posted is that a person doesn't need to be convicted of something before people have every right to be critical of their actions or motives.
Click to expand...

LOL. No.

1. Horrible examples. Give some better ones.
2. You can be critical of someone's actions or motives but you can't be critical of them by using alternative facts. See the problem?

See post #334

http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?119981-POTUS-45-08-Suckers&p=6486226&viewfull=1#post6486226
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Kepler said:
Maybe this is all for the best. All the wingnut idiocy gets tried out, goes down in flames, and then even though the eejits will keep crying for it (because it enriches them personally) the rest of the country will say "been there, done that."
Click to expand...

Umm..........tax cuts? Hasn't stopped them yet.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

SJHovey said:
I'm not equivocating anyone with anyone. In fact, this seems to be the default accusation leveled whenever someone can't think of a real response.

What I posted is that a person doesn't need to be convicted of something before people have every right to be critical of their actions or motives.
Click to expand...

Ok- but then WHY do those "reasons" demonstrate that she would be a bad President? Especially when those exact flaws are seen in don. But more.

The accusations that are being made are clearly against the law, in a major way. If they are true. If.

This isn't like Bush and Cheney having to face the world court and be war criminals. These are laws on the books in the US that she has allegedly violated. There's no real argument that she should or shouldn't be prosecuted because of jurisdiction- it's treason or not.

So if you are going to accusing her of breaking a pretty critical law, one that generals are going to court over doing the same thing, you should have something behind it.

Or the accusation is BS.

This isn't being critical of Hillary Clinton, this is accusing her of treason. There is a difference.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

SJHovey said:
I'm not equivocating anyone with anyone. In fact, this seems to be the default accusation leveled whenever someone can't think of a real response.

What I posted is that a person doesn't need to be convicted of something before people have every right to be critical of their actions or motives.
Click to expand...

Funny how it only seems to be Democrats that certain "centrists" are critical of.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Ivanka is filling the role of first lady, since Melania wants nothing to do with it.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Handyman said:
She has no voice...what are her supposed pet projects? She supposedly supports Planned Parenthood and the Environment...either Daddy is ignoring her or she is full of it ;)

I am sure Ivanka is a great businesswoman and good for her that is awesome. (leaving out the slave labor charges for now) But she holds no sway over her dad and to me serves no purpose in the WH. That isnt a knock on her as a person, just on her as an advisor to the President.
Click to expand...

Honestly, she is used just to deflect from the real issues people care about. It may not be fair that she is being knocked down for her father's misbehaviors and tweets. But she has no influence on policy even if she believes in the working women and other issues people care about. She can be for women but it has no influence in the WH policy making. She is like a prop just like anything else in the Trump administration. Does it make up for the lack of women in his cabinet and administration in a male dominate WH ?

Trump is donating his checks but he makes far more from his conflicts of interests and brandings. It is more for show and to create an illusion that he is honest and transparent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top