***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[IATT]

 

[Belgium]

Sheesh
This man was fed up

NOAA scientists certainly stuck it to the political appointees.

 

[Belgium]

The NOAA emails also show concerns that a federal crime was committed to cover up Trump's false claim.

 

[boris]

Reading Dwalk's comments are making my head hurt because he is so full of it.

His argument is now just a false equivalency. Trump showed poor judgement,and so did Biden, but it should somehow be a wash if people admit Biden showed poor judgement.

But let us break down the BS real quick.

First, Hunter Biden showed poor judgement, not Joe Biden. Hunter Biden is not running for president, and is not the person Trump tried to smear. If Hunter Biden was running for president I then maybe this nonsense argument would make more sense, but right now there is no evidence Joe Biden acted inappropriately.

Secondly, Joe Biden was not president, Barack Obama was. So not only would someone have to show a Hunter Biden to Joe Biden corruption connection, they would have to find a way to tie Obama to it. There is no such connection even discussed

Third, DWalk is a damn hypocrite to take issue with Hunter Biden. The Trump kids and Jared Kushner and openly using their father's presidency to enrich themselves. Where is Dwalk's objections to Ivanka getting granted patents in China during trade talks. Or foreign governments giving favor to Trump businesses to win favor with Trump and his sons flying over the world acting like they represent both the adminstration and the company at the same time. Why hasn't DWalk called for investigations into this potential graft? Yet request people take issue with Hunter.

There is no proof Joe Biden did anything illegal. If there was evidence pointing to that then the GOP could have referred the case to the FBI years ago, they didn't. Instead Trump broke the law just to smear Joe Biden, just because his son showed poor judgement.

Hunter Biden's name is not on the ballot. Joe Biden has done nothing to disqualify himself from being president. However Trump clearly did.

And the only reason he was not removed because the GOP Senate is just as morally bankrupt and bootlicking as our resident fry cook turned lawyer, turned insincere criminal justice, activist turned struggle aspiring real estate mogul, turned economic beggar, turned advocate for conservative sexual deviants, turned sealioning troll.

So please dwalk31 spare us the nonsense.

That's always his main objective. Establish a false equivalency (e.g. da echo chamber wants to erode due process) and use that every time someone criticizes Trump or the GOP to call them a hypocrite. Rinse and repeat.

 

[SpittaJetLife]

What Dems gonna do after they get washed in Nov?.

 

[dwalk31]

What Dems gonna do after they get washed in Nov?.

If Bernie wins the nomination I can see Dems winning the presidency

 

[Belgium]

NOAA officials were cautioned to refrain from making statements about the coverup that could violate the Hatch Act. At the same time, Kellyanne Conway was brazenly violating the Hatch Act dozens of times with the support of the WH. Another WH official who repeatedly violated the Hatch Act openly stated that she "honestly doesn't care" about violating the law.
The sycophants enjoyed WH-approved impunity while the lower ranked officials were instructed to refrain from making statements that could be perceived as political.

 

[tego calderon el abayarde]

I don't understand the fascination with going back and forth with someone thats just throwing against a mirror

Couldn't be me.

 

[Methodical Management]

I don’t think you’d be abusing your power at all. I wouldn’t think it is right, but doing something that I don’t think is right is something that you’re well within your rights to do.

So, might may not make right - but it does determine abuse?

Is it thus, by your standard, impossible for an autocrat to abuse their absolute power?

Unlike the President of the US, there’s no real check on your powers (the posters didn’t vote you in, we can’t impeach/remove you etc).

The "check" in this instance is the same as for any other service: applicable regulation and consumer preference - yet, in your initial reply, you hinted at a distinction between what is right, ethically, and what I can get away with legally.

Personally, as a conservative/republican I think I provide a unique perspective.

That depends: are we using "unique" to represent novelty or merely frequency?

Is constantly asking if Trump will be removed, as if gesturing to the scoreboard, a unique perspective, or is it "griefing?"
Is characterizing the ideological diversity in this thread as an "echo chamber" a unique perspective, or is it an insult?

You'll forgive me if I don't find those sorts of antics to be particularly unique. Were we to determine their market value by the amount Facebook or Youtube receive for their publication, they would be worth exponentially less than a dime a dozen.
In the evolutionary hierarchy of political commentary, such tactics are protozoan.

You appear to delight in tweaking the patience of those whom you consider ideological adversaries. By definition, deliberate attempts to antagonize or disrupt online communities or conversations is considered trolling.

You are not the only one to do so, yet you seldom miss an opportunity to announce that you won't report this, or any other form of misbehavior.


You feel targeted because you are being occasionally held accountable for routinely acting in bad faith, but anyone who follows this thread with any frequency can provide you with a list of users who've expressed support for Democratic candidates and policies and have been banned from the thread/site for trolling or other violations.

Can you name a single conservative user who follows the rules without fail and has been wrongly denied access?
Can you name a single conservative user who received a harsher penalty for committing the same offense as a liberal user?

If not, how do you justify the allegations of unfairness and bias?

That you feel you're the only prominent conservative here does not mean that we are obligated to countenance trolling for the sake of representation.


Do you want to see a higher standard of discourse in this thread or not?

 

[Wargames]

why not say soros and Obama too while you at it if youre going regurgitate GOP talking points?

bill was hugely popular.. and while Hillary wasn’t charismatic, she still received 3 mill more votes than trump after comey decided that throwing out an another FBI investigation less than 2 weeks before the election was a smart idea.. an her before a woman following a black man having been president for 8 years.. o an republicans using the Clinton name for going on 20+ years

I didn’t say Bill was guilty, but they expanded on that impeachment by creating negative sentiment and innuendo among their base and the non politic junkies. I honestly think impeachment was the kindling behind the way people think Hillary is corrupt (besides the sexism) and every other conspiracy. I think Comey caused her the election, but he didn’t create that hate and suspicion.

Trump is that for Dems. Bush 2 was as much a monster, but got to slither away and let time heal his image. Trump ain’t built like that, his actions aren’t built for that, this stain is gonna last. Impeachment does that, how this is gonna be decided is gonna follow the whole party of Republicans too.

Those purple state Republicans are going to have to fight for their seats like they are for their lives and they know it. You can see it in their microaggressions..... as always while Trump gets off those around him will burn.

 

[Wargames]

While I agree that the impeachment is a permanent stain for both, the difference is that one was a serious politician prior—Clinton.

Trump was hardly taken serious for most of his campaign. So I think he’ll be able to flip the impeachment as some sort of badge of honor. In a way that Clinton didn’t because he was more of a traditional politician who showed remorse after.

Trump isn’t likely going to flip this to a badge of honor. Too much evidence came out in the public. Like the whole “we don’t do witness” stuff only works if they could have kept the witnesses from leaking it to the media. I think it’s a worst stain than what happened to Bill because everyone kind of thought Oral Sex and cheating was a joke impeachment. This rat hole keeps going deeper, and when/if Biden gets the nomination it’s gonna hang over the election like a fart in a elevator.

 

[IATT]

 

[gry60]

 

[Lake Shore Drive]

I’m sorry I just don’t understand how this guy hasn’t been banned from this thread yet.
I seen people in Sports & Training get banned for less trolling than this.

 

[Belgium]

Do these plebeians not understand that Kushner read a whole 25 books on this subject?

 

[RustyShackleford]

 

[IATT]

What Dems gonna do after they get washed in Nov?.

republicans need to win more than the presidency

 

[dwalk31]

I’m sorry I just don’t understand how this guy hasn’t been banned from this thread yet.
I seen people in Sports & Training get banned for less trolling than this.

Im not trolling. I’m just the only Conservative/Republican that posts in this thread and my posts are shown more scrutiny because many in here think you are de facto deplorable if you are a Trump supporter.

 

[IATT]

 

[dwalk31]

So, might may not make right - but it does determine abuse?

Is it thus, by your standard, impossible for an autocrat to abuse their absolute power?


The "check" in this instance is the same as for any other service: applicable regulation and consumer preference - yet, in your initial reply, you hinted at a distinction between what is right, ethically, and what I can get away with legally.


That depends: are we using "unique" to represent novelty or merely frequency?

Is constantly asking if Trump will be removed, as if gesturing to the scoreboard, a unique perspective, or is it "griefing?"
Is characterizing the ideological diversity in this thread as an "echo chamber" a unique perspective, or is it an insult?

You'll forgive me if I don't find those sorts of antics to be particularly unique. Were we to determine their market value by the amount Facebook or Youtube receive for their publication, they would be worth exponentially less than a dime a dozen.
In the evolutionary hierarchy of political commentary, such tactics are protozoan.

You appear to delight in tweaking the patience of those whom you consider ideological adversaries. By definition, deliberate attempts to antagonize or disrupt online communities or conversations is considered trolling.

You are not the only one to do so, yet you seldom miss an opportunity to announce that you won't report this, or any other form of misbehavior.


You feel targeted because you are being occasionally held accountable for routinely acting in bad faith, but anyone who follows this thread with any frequency can provide you with a list of users who've expressed support for Democratic candidates and policies and have been banned from the thread/site for trolling or other violations.

Can you name a single conservative user who follows the rules without fail and has been wrongly denied access?
Can you name a single conservative user who received a harsher penalty for committing the same offense as a liberal user?

If not, how do you justify the allegations of unfairness and bias?

That you feel you're the only prominent conservative here does not mean that we are obligated to countenance trolling for the sake of representation.


Do you want to see a higher standard of discourse in this thread or not?

I don’t mind the standard for discourse in this thread which is why I don’t block or report people. I have been warned, fairly, when I crossed the line. And I respect that. I do call out hypocrisy at pearl clutching when others post similar things that they pretend to be appalled at when the president says it.

Honestly, I think most in here understand where each other stand and handle conversations accordingly.

The difference, as I see it, is that people are not tagging you calling for others to be banned (despite them constantly posting about Roy Moore, or coal gang, etc.). Ostensibly the difference is where I land on the political spectrum.

I’m not complaining. The person who tagged you was complaining. I’m responding to your questions but don’t mistake that as me having a grievance. I’m good.

I think what I point out is the difference in scrutiny given to different posts. That’s it.

 

[dwalk31]

Trump isn’t likely going to flip this to a badge of honor. Too much evidence came out in the public. Like the whole “we don’t do witness” stuff only works if they could have kept the witnesses from leaking it to the media. I think it’s a worst stain than what happened to Bill because everyone kind of thought Oral Sex and cheating was a joke impeachment. This rat hole keeps going deeper, and when/if Biden gets the nomination it’s gonna hang over the election like a fart in a elevator.

We’ll see. I’m interested to see how it will play out. I am really interested to see how this Hunter Biden story plays on Monday in Iowa. I think Bernie comes away in the lead.

 

[IATT]

 

[AEA18]

 

[boris]

In the Theranos documentary, The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley, this was sort of the same thing they said to any employees that questioned the company's garbage product or its unethical decisions. Straight out of the narcissist playbook.

 

[IATT]

dwalk31 what would Biden be impeached from?