Reply With Quote
fair enough, but this is a discussion board, not a newspaper
Seriously?
Yeah, I'm laughing at you this time, Grumphole.
I obviously don't advocate conducting foreign relations via tweet.
fair enough, but this is a discussion board, not a newspaper
you used the same emoji to wave off rushing nominations. what did you mean there?Seriously?
Yeah, I'm laughing at you this time, Grumphole.
I obviously don't advocate conducting foreign relations via tweet.
If you stay up with current events you know that the media has been attacking virtually every nomination Trump has made. I'm laughing that you are advocating that the nominations are not being vetted when your complaint is really that the Democrats most likely won't have the votes to block most of the nominations. They might claim a token scalp or two but that's it. It won't be for lack of nominee criticism it will be for lack of votes.
I realize it's not noon yet but you need to pop a cork and chill out.
not at all. I'm complaining specifically about the US Senate's lack of due diligence. Even if it's pro-forma, it's important: rushing nominees could leave our government vulnerable to crooks, special interests and foreign powers.
It's important for the US Senate to search out possible conflicts and for nominees to do something about anything that might come up, prior to confirmation.
You mean forget party politics and impartially seek the truth and do what is fair and right?
In Washington DC?
Yeah, I'm cynically laughing at that concept. Is what it is and that pendulum has swung both ways since the country was founded.
It's funny that for 8 years Winehole's only response to any hint of corrupt politics was that "Republicans are overplaying their hand". Since Trumps victory it's nonstop corruption corruption corruption from him...even though nothing has happened.
Fair and right has nothing to do with due diligence. Vetting cabinet nominees relates to prudence, responsibility and prevention of harm to the country, the US President and the US Senate.
It's about CYA as much as anything else. It's foolish and short-sighted for the US Senate to confirm the President's nominees without vetting them.
Can you give specific examples?
you exagerrate. I've defended trump against scurrilous Democratic red-baiting and hysterical pleas to discredit the election results.Since Trumps victory it's nonstop corruption corruption corruption from him...even though nothing has happened.
bull .It's funny that for 8 years Winehole's only response to any hint of corrupt politics was that "Republicans are overplaying their hand".
you'd be hard pressed to find a stronger critic on this board of the bank bailout, the ACA, the erosion of the the 4th Amendment, the war on whistleblowers, criminalizing journalism, the expansion of government secrecy, corrupt and foolish military interventions, and domestic surveillance. all these things happened under Obama and I've consistently called him out for it.
during the presidential campaign I attacked pinheads who tried to wave off HRC's home server and the Cllinton Foundation as non-issues. they weren't, and I consistently said so.
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-08-2017 at 01:16 PM.
, I posted something today about it.
regarding Benghazi, Solyndra and Fast and Furious, you'd be right. those were ginned up media furores. there wasn't much there there -- Republicans did overplay their hand in those cases -- did you have others in mind?
be specific if you can.
Co-signed.
Agreed.
Snakeboy and a load of trump supporters are hyper-sensitive.
Cheerleaders always assume partisan bias from anyone who attacks their guy, because that's all they know.
CC said the same thing. So focused on the presumably desired result he can't see the issue with the process.
Of course I see the problem with the process. I've just seen it on both sides of the fence as long as I've been watching national politics. I admit to bring cynical that it will ever change no matter how much you wish it was different. Like Obama gleefully pointed out, elections have consequences.
Consequences when Repugs win are universally negative except for Repug BigDonors, and Repugs themselves.
Boo hoo Booboo.
So this discussion could very well have taken place when Obama did it and this could be an old thread. Instead it gets lumped on to the growing pile of Trump offenses as if he's broken new ground. If it was just a one off, that's different, but this is part of a pattern. It's very close to fake news in that it pretends to be something noteworthy when in fact it's only noteworthy because it's Trump. This becomes evident by the small writing in these articles, the disclaimers...Headlines read "TRUMP FIRING ALL AMBASSADORS" and "AMBASSADORS TOLD TO VACATE BY JAN 20th" and readers see "TRUMP HEAVY HANDED DICTATORSHIP LIKE POLICY SETS NEW PRECEDENCE" with the disclaimer later in the article "Obama did it as well".
Why be part of the problem, since we know the problem is largely perception based on propaganda?
Last edited by DMC; 01-08-2017 at 03:45 PM.
Okay I concede that I overstated your bias but you've been off the rails with the corruption speculation since Trump won. At least let him become POTUS before you try to paint him as completely corrupt. I couldn't stand Obama but once he won I didn't have much to say about him until after he became POTUS and actually started doing things I didn't like.
"At least let him become POTUS before you try to paint him as completely corrupt."
His corruption goes back decades. He's a total mothe er, totally ABNORMAL, but keep giving him the benefit of the doubt, normalizing him.
He's a sicko ABNORMAL, a corrupt megalomaniac.
*flush*Booscreammmmm
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions