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:
And candidly, anyone trying to find out why someone else thinks HRC would have been a bad president, at this point in time, is acting pretty silly. Who cares? She isn't President. Whether people think she would or would not have made a good president is pretty irrelevant right now, don't you agree?
Click to expand...

Considering what's in the White House now and people's reasons for it, no, I don't agree. But, if you would like to sweep history under the rug like the Right/GOP/Republicans have for the last 50 years, feel free.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

ericredaxe said:
While I don't think I was ever a staunch republican, I would say what you are describing is similar to my personal experience. In recent years, I have voted for more Democrats although I still often have split my ticket.

I'd be interested to see how many on here truly evaluate each candidate on their own merits vs simply voting the party...
Click to expand...

I did, and it turned out my beliefs aligned the closest with Johnson.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

SJHovey said:
Here is your exact quote to which I responded.In that quote you basically argued that because there have been no prosecutions of HRC relating to the emails, Foundation, etc..., there is no basis for Brent to be critical of her because of those things.

My point was that I think it's fair for Brent and others to be critical of HRC and her handling of the Foundation, her emails, etc..., even if she wasn't prosecuted, just like I think it's fair for people to be critical of Dick Cheney even though he wasn't prosecuted. For instance, I don't think HRC handled her emails correctly. I'm not in favor of official government emails being handled as she handled them, especially given the risk that something pretty sensitive might be leaked. But that doesn't mean I think she violated a law for which she should go to prison or even be prosecuted.

And candidly, anyone trying to find out why someone else thinks HRC would have been a bad president, at this point in time, is acting pretty silly. Who cares? She isn't President. Whether people think she would or would not have made a good president is pretty irrelevant right now, don't you agree?
Click to expand...

Ok, so where is your outrage for don handling sensitive things out in the open, then?

Or criticizing don for continuing to have a contract under don inc with the government?

Or not liking how don's foundation buys portraits of himself instead of trying to help people of Haiti (even if that wasn't handled well).

In other words, if you are going to hold that against Hillary Clinton, why are you not holding the exact same thing against don?

So don't hold the "no prosecution" specific to you.

That's the other side of the coin with Clinton- claims of why she would be a bad president don't go equally toward don. His craziness is held against him, the irrationality is held against him. But the same reasons people think Hillary would be flawed isn't a flaw for don.

THAT is why it's being brought up.

BTW, there are a lot of people who DID say "lock her up", or still do.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

The hill reporting that Donald is considering breaking up the ninth circuit due to blocking his exec orders.

It's only 430 *** else could happen today
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
The hill reporting that Donald is considering breaking up the ninth circuit due to blocking his exec orders.

It's only 430 *** else could happen today
Click to expand...

This is just donnie trying to change the rules after you tagged him to say you have to tag him below the knees.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
The hill reporting that Donald is considering breaking up the ninth circuit due to blocking his exec orders.

It's only 430 *** else could happen today
Click to expand...

My lord this guy is clueless...

edit: I can see the PC now:

"The Ninth Circuit, which btw, is the worst circuit of them all. Ask anyone they are super liberal, they hate Republicans, in fact to even have a case heard in the Ninth Circuit as a Republican is a tremendous thing. Many people have told me, people you wouldnt BELIEVE, that I am being attacked by the courts in ways NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS HAD TO DEAL WITH! The media doesnt mention that though. They just talk about taxes and my gold game. Anyway, the Ninth Circuit has committed what many are telling me, and this is what they are saying, is an I-LLE-gal act, some might say treasonous act, by defying my orders and overruling my rules. We cant let this stand. As President, my authority is beyond reproach, and my power is tremendous. I have done more in my first 100 days than Barack Obama did in 8 years! Think about it, my speeches get the highest ratings, my inauguration was the highest attended in the HISTORY of the USA and my tax reform and health care bills define what it means to MAKE...AMERICA...GREAT...AGAIN! Do you think Hillary would be have done all this? WRONG! In accordance with this, I have asked my amazingly talented and smart son in law Jared Kushner to spearhead an initiative to break up the Ninth Circuit into many tiny Circuits and my lovely and talented...some would say ****, myself included...daughter Ivanka to brand each with the Trump logo and find the right people to run each Circuit. They will be only the greatest minds, and they will help us build the wall."
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

SJHovey said:
My point was that I think it's fair for Brent and others to be critical of HRC and her handling of the Foundation, her emails, etc..., even if she wasn't prosecuted
Click to expand...

Yeah, except the clinton foundation has an A rating, low overhead, and there really is nothing to be critical of (unlike the Trump foundation). And it turns out the email thing was way overblown.

SJHovey said:
And candidly, anyone trying to find out why someone else thinks HRC would have been a bad president, at this point in time, is acting pretty silly. Who cares? She isn't President. Whether people think she would or would not have made a good president is pretty irrelevant right now, don't you agree?
Click to expand...

Well personally I'd like to figure out why people are so stupid and fell for the "emailz" and "foundation shenanigans" while overlooking actual REAL issues on the side of Trump. Like running a fraud university, a bogus charity, ties to Russia, complete lack of knowledge of how government works, the complete inability to speak in coherent sentences, etc.

An autopsy is an important part of the process.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Honestly, I'd have no problem with disliking Hillary "just because" she gives you a bad vibe, or you hate the way she speaks, or whatever. It's the citing of debunked scandals that needs to end.

For example, I have a Canadian co-worker that I just spent couple of days on-site with. He's whip smart, and a good developer, but has the most annoying intonation when he speaks (it's like he's imploring you with every sentence). Being with him in a client meeting for 2 days is difficult. But, he's effective and a pretty good guy. ;)
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
The hill reporting that Donald is considering breaking up the ninth circuit due to blocking his exec orders.

It's only 430 *** else could happen today
Click to expand...

To be fair, people have been talking about breaking up the Ninth for a long time. Due to population growth it's a monster district.

But it's also a partisan knuck wet dream. I'm not sure how you do it -- amend the Judiciary Act I guess. I think it's just a bill, though, not an constitutional amendment.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

ericredaxe said:
While I don't think I was ever a staunch republican, I would say what you are describing is similar to my personal experience. In recent years, I have voted for more Democrats although I still often have split my ticket.

I'd be interested to see how many on here truly evaluate each candidate on their own merits vs simply voting the party...
Click to expand...

I can vote for independents or democrats. the republican platform is too nuts to vote for any R. Ethically I can't do ANYTHING that helps the party advance their agenda, which I find morally reprehensible. Having any warm body with a R after their name in congress, or state legislatures, helps them do that. Once upon a time i could respect a Republican like Olympia Snowe or William Cohen, but now I can't respect anyone that willingly associates themselves with that party.
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Well at this point I wont vote for anyone who opposes Gay Rights, Women's Rights, Climate Science and pretty much everything the GOP ****es on daily. Why the Party of smaller government would want to tell people what they can or cannot due proves they dont have clue one what true conservatism is.

When the GOP gets rid of the Christian Sharia Terrorists then we can talk...
 
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers

Kepler said:
To be fair, people have been talking about breaking up the Ninth for a long time. Due to population growth it's a monster district.

But it's also a partisan knuck wet dream. I'm not sure how you do it -- amend the Judiciary Act I guess. I think it's just a bill, though, not an constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...


Yes, a bill. Like this one, I'd imagine.


Really, it probably should be broken up. 20% of the population is under this one court. But beyond that the other thing is that if they meet en banc they just have 11 of the 28 (I think?) judges show up. So judges appointed by whomever aren't even sitting on the cases they are in theory appointed to be sitting on. That's just a strange way to operate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top