I_M4_AU
-
Posts
13,470 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by I_M4_AU
-
-
15 hours ago, DKW 86 said:
It had to be a very very low bar for the answer to be Biden.
The question is; who is going to be the one that cleans up the mess after 4 years of Biden? The extreme left will not like anyone to the right of this administration as a Democratic nominee.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Is this strike two for Milley?
-
1
-
-
On 9/18/2021 at 9:16 AM, AUDub said:
The framing was that if we discuss reparations today then the discussion or slave owners being owed reparations is equally valid, which is honestly pretty disgusting. Elder is arguing this in bad faith since he is only saying this to obfuscate the issue of black reparations.To say that there is an equivalence between the material harm done to slaves and slave owners is dishonest and callous in its indifference to basic human rights.
The legal argument that Elder makes was rendered moot the moment the Civil War happened and the South lost. Yes, some slave owners were compensated, but the ones that decided they'd prefer rebellion over any sort of diplomatic solution threw that to the wind.
I understand your point of view. I was just giving the whole statement and not just part of one. Like I said; I would imagine compensation to the slave owners was discussed at the time, but a struggling new country couldn’t afford to borrow 40% of its worth, sooooo.
-
On 9/17/2021 at 12:47 PM, AU9377 said:
A full on assault to change our beliefs and systems of governing? Do tell.
Joe Biden - nobody can question that he is a man of faith. Compare that to a president that has never asked for forgiveness because he has never done anything that needed forgiving. I believe it was Lindsey Graham who said "If you can't admire Joe Biden as a person... u got a problem... cause what's not to like".... I understand that this does not fit with the narrative pushed by the talking heads at Fox of OAN, but ask yourself who is most likely telling the truth about a man's character?
I'll leave then entire thing here to make it easy to understand.
Again you are focusing on the previous President, which has nothing to do with our current President and how he is guiding this country down a divided path.
One issue is immigration. The House is purposing a “path to citizenship” in the new $3.5 Billion Infrastructure saying that these *Dreamers* are, as Jerry Hadler puts it, HUMAN INFRASTRUCTURE. Does this sound like something you would like to be called? Almost sounds like chattel of the U.S..
A new House bill could provide green card relief for thousands of individuals and families waiting years in backlogs and grant legal status to millions of immigrants living in the United States without legal status. Although the bill does not contain permanent structural changes to the legal immigration system, it would likely allow more individuals to gain permanent residence than the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act and provide relief for many families, high-skilled immigrants and employers.
Background: On September 10, 2021, the House Judiciary Committee released a press statement: “Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) announced the committee printfor the Committee markup on Monday, September 13th on legislative proposals under the budget reconciliation instructions.” Before becoming law, the provisions would have to pass the Judiciary Committee, the House of Representatives and the Senate and be signed by the president. (Update: On September 13, 2021, “The House Judiciary Committee voted 25-19 along party lines to advance [the] legislation,” reported Suzanne Monyak of CQ/Roll Call. No substantive amendments passed that changed the underlying immigration provisions in the bill. )
So, is Biden pushing the path to citizenship because he is a God fearing man?
Do you think a man with religious convictions would be OK with men competing in women’s MMA matches and brutalizing their opponents?
https://nypost.com/2021/09/11/transgender-fighter-alana-mclaughlin-wins-mma-debut/
How about allowing a 4 year old decide their own gender?
Do you agree with the administration’s stance on these subjects?
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 9/17/2021 at 12:20 PM, homersapien said:
Equating the senate with the jury in a legal trial is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen on this forum.
Of course the Senate is equal to the jury in legal trials. That’s the way impeachments are set up;
In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the federal government by approving, by simple majority vote, articles of impeachment. After the House of Representatives sends its articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment to consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official.
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment.htm
I’ve been on a jury that one member inserted their beliefs into the matter and did not listen to the facts. The jury voted 11-1 guilty. The perp got off.
Please explain where my perspective is wrong.
-
1
-
-
On 9/17/2021 at 12:39 PM, AU9377 said:
..........and OJ was not guilty of killing his wife and a waiter.
This is a correct statement, look it up.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/o-j-simpson-acquitted
You just can’t change history, unless of course you are Nicole Hanna-Jones.
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, Leftfield said:
How refreshing would it be if we could just focus on getting a majority, 2/3 majority, or super majority vote of independent thinkers instead of mostly partisan hacks?
Thinking about this; there are not many independent thinkers in Congress as these people are elected to express the concerns of the people who put them in office. If they don’t express the *people’s* concerns they will loose their position. Hence, the wishy washy talk by politicians until recently. So, if you have a 3rd party, that 3rd party has to run on some sort of platform that will convince Republicans and Democrats to switch parties to have a viable 3rd party.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, creed said:
Free speech is a powerful right of our citizens. But it loses it's power when not used with good judgment and/or intentions. In my opinion the power of free speech is best displayed when supported by "real" facts and reasoning. A bunch of students using their right of free speech by yelling something like this at a football game of all places makes them look foolish.
14 hours ago, aubaseball said:I guess pigs in blanket…fry’em like bacon, is ok as long as it’s at a protest. Some on here act like the f word is completely off limits. In today’s vocabulary, the f word is used by today’s young adults with regularity.
Looking foolish is a right of every human since the dawn of creation. When you say something offensive and are called out for it, will the offender take the criticism to heart or will it emboldened them? Aubaseball brings up an example of the latter.
Sitting on the fence is no way to go through life. Conservatives have been doing this for years and the left have, little by little, shaped out culture. What we are witnessing now is a full on assault by the Biden Administration to change our fundamental beliefs and systems of governing. He has a deadline of the midterm elections until he, hopefully, will get resistance from Congress.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, AU9377 said:
There is no human that understands the English language that could listen to the testimony of the long list of intelligence officers, U.S. Ambassadors and others and conclude that there was insufficient evidence. An honest statement on their part could be that they simply didn't believe that it warranted removal from office, but the evidence of what took place was barely challenged. Of course, the easy thing to do was to simply pretend that what they heard was not what they heard.
It was common knowledge that even the most extreme Republicans saw Trump as an unhinged man willing to do anything. Only a few of them had the backbone to actually push back. Heck, Ted Cruz even sacrificed his own dignity to kiss the ring.
Well, that would be your perspective. Any Republican that agrees with the Dems point of view is reasonable any other are Hitler. Case in point; George W. was Hitler while he was President, but after his 9/11 speech this year he is a reasonable man.
The bottom line is Trump was not guilty of bribery.
-
1
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, Leftfield said:
Do you also believe the Democrats were of similar high character in Clinton's impeachment trial?
I really don’t give it much thought. Is what it is, me being upset or disgusted won’t change anything.
39 minutes ago, Leftfield said:Uh, voters. In elections and stuff. I'm talking about having more than two political parties, and a system where some can actually be elected as independents, beholden to no one but those they represent.
That was my point. An Independent party is years in the making. Neither party wants to split allegiance at this time. If some of each would go the moderate route it could happen, but that would assume the extremes don’t change.
-
3 minutes ago, Leftfield said:
Don't act obtuse. The point is that even thought it was proven, members of those Presidents' own parties ignored it because of politics over doing the right thing. In their minds there was too much at stake to give any ground to the "other side." The exceptions being, of course, the Republicans that did cross party lines in their votes.
The very term "bi-partisan" is a reinforcement of the two-party system. I hate that we even have to use that word. How refreshing would it be if we could just focus on getting a majority, 2/3 majority, or super majority vote of independent thinkers instead of mostly partisan hacks?
You believe I’m being *obtuse* because I don’t necessarily believe what you believe. As an example; I don’t agree that Republicans voted just due to politics. I believe the Republicans that voted to acquit did so because they felt there was not enough evidence brought up to vote a President out of office.
Who would pick these independent thinkers?
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, AU9377 said:
Maybe Biden will give them all the Presidential Medal of Freedom. They certainly deserve it more than Rush Limbaugh.
That would be apropos for this administration.
-
8 minutes ago, Leftfield said:
I absolutely believe in the Constitution, but that doesn't mean our government doesn't have failings. The two-party system is one of them. Clinton was guilty as hell, and so was Trump. Partisanship kept them from being convicted.
As for voting for removal from office, Trump absolutely deserved that.. Not sure I would have voted for Clinton to be removed just because he lied about getting a blow job.
Yes we have failings and the two-party system is a problem, more now then ever. Trump did not deserve to be removed from office if the prosecutor could not prove he should be removed. It was partisan, I agree, but if a President was to be removed from office it must be bipartisan. That is the way the system is set up.
-
17 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:
1) Let a crazy man start a nuclear war?
There is no evidence of this at all. If there were no evidence the *or* statement doesn’t have credence.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Leftfield said:
And certainly had nothing to do with the fact that Republicans in the Senate were either in the tank for Trump or completely covering their political tails, right?
Considering that Romney was the first senator to vote for impeachment on a President in his own party in the first trial, and then seven senators did so in his second trial, I'm not sure you want to make this argument. Everyone knew impeachment was a long shot entirely because of partisanship.
Don't forget that in the first impeachment proceedings, the senate voted (by only two votes) to not even listen to additional evidence, which would have included Bolton's testimony.
You guys are amazing. You don’t believe in the Constitution unless it goes your way. No matter how you feel, by the rule of law, Trump was found not guilty. It’s why the Democrats want to get rid of the filibuster. Yeah, majority rules, that’s the ticket. What could go wrong.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, AU9377 said:
A sitting U.S. President is not allowed to use his office and the power of the U.S. to bribe foreign governments to do an act with the sole purpose being to damage his domestic political rivals. That concept is not hard to grasp.
Of course he is not and it didn’t happen, or at least it wasn’t proven to the Senate. Is this concept hard to grasp.
-
6 minutes ago, AU9377 said:
That is bull**** and you know it. I suppose you also believe that Bill Clinton didn't get off in the Oval Office. After all, he wasn't convicted of it... right?
Of course he *got off* in the Oval Office, but I believe Clinton was accused of perjury and obstruction and those could not be proven, therefore he was not guilty as seen by the Senate.
ETA: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-clinton-impeached
-
3 minutes ago, AU9377 said:
There was more proof of the offenses in the first impeachment trial than anything that took place during Watergate...... and there were audio tapes proving Nixon's knowledge of the criminal conduct.
If this was the case he would have been found guilty in the Senate. If the Democrats had not overwhelming controlled the House, it would have never reached the Senate for trail. Those two impeachments were used as a tool to get rid of a President the Democrats didn’t like. That is not how it is suppose to work.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Leftfield said:
Except Trump, right?
This is what you keep missing, and I don't understand why: The entire reason Milley took these actions is because in his view, and the view of many others, Trump was going off the rails. Trump was already making attempts to circumvent established rules by going to people he knew were completely loyal to him. It's a pattern he's had during his entire time in office: If someone wouldn't play ball with him, he replaced them with a total loyalist. If Milley had done what you suggest, and step aside because he didn't agree, all Trump would have to do was keep going until he found someone who would go along with him. At that level, you do not want a blind loyalist, or a person that will follow commands without question. You're making no distinction between service members in a platoon and the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, which is absurd.
Also, don't forget, the entire lesson in A Few Good Men was to not blindly follow orders, no matter where you are in the chain of command. Trump is Jessup in this scenario.
In his view and the view of many others?????? In view of many Trump should have been impeached at least two times, but this is not majority rule. You actually have to have proof. There is no evidence that Trump was “going off the rails”. It was all in Milley’s and a few people that agreed with him. There are established rules to abide by and should be followed.
If you are to lead you definitely want like minded people in your key positions, Biden is doing that. Is Biden going off the rails by doing this? I happen to think Biden, as shown by his withdrawal in Afghanistan, seemed to have more *yes* men installed than Trump did.
As to the entire lesson of “A Few Good Men”, did Trump lead us into any war? In fact, he was the only President in a long time that didn’t lead us into war in his first term. Trump was hand cuffed his entire term as President, to believe he went off the rails (except of course after his defeat in the election) is void of fact. There would not be any Republican that would go along with a lame duck President in the last 4 months of his term to start a war.
It was a continuous theme during Trump’s Presidency that he was unfit, crazy and not intelligent enough to be President. This view wall held by many, yet there was not enough evidence to remove him from office. It seems a few around here would rather believe a General that, arguably, committed treason than any evidence to the contrary.
-
2
-
-
44 minutes ago, creed said:
I believe this conversation is an example of the opinionated (mostly uninformed) and problematic dynamic that is going on in our country. It propagates a negative view in an institution we should have faith and trust in, and only serves to divide our country. On top of that it's rooted in an idiotic line of political affiliation.
So, is defund the police an example of a negative view of an institution we should have faith and trust in? I guarantee it serves to divide our country especially domestically. I think that is idiotic; how about you? Is it associated with any particular political affiliation?
When leaders of an institution act contrary to established rules (chain if command) they need to be called out. In the military it is the most important code they live by. The fictional character Colonel Jessup in the movie “A Few Good Men” was one of these type of men that believed his way was the way things should be run. It happens and needs to be rooted out. It does not mean ALL the military men and women are guilty of this just like it doesn’t mean all police officers are racist murderers.
Which belief do you believe divides the country more Creed? Can you see the difference in the arguments?
I personally am grateful for the men and women of the Armed Services as I am grateful for the men and women of the Police. Both must stay vigilant in vetting their leaders or the institution will suffer.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, AU9377 said:
In your mind, all of these grown men, men who have served this country all of their lives, are at fault for safeguarding this country. That is a sickness.
Who said ALL? Why do you have to lump the patriotic young men and women in with a General that does not respect the chain of command? This General, if the reports are true, undermined the US by his actions. He is (maybe) a General that believed more in his way than established military conduct. A person with any integrity would have stepped down when he disagreed with his boss. This General, no matter how long he has served, needs to resign.
I am grateful to the men and women in uniform that serve our country and uphold the military code of honor in spite of their personal feelings. I am also grateful to the men and women that serve as police officers. However, there are some that have put their personal believes ahead of there duty to protect and serve. Where do you stand on this issue. Have you ever thought that we should defund the police? Are the police systemically racist? Are there a few bad apples in the military and police? Sure there are and by their actions they are found out. It is better to find this out before they make their big mistake, but it happens.
-
1
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, Leftfield said:
Oh yes, obvious.
So if every one of them has lost their integrity, how do you find a general that hasn't? Ask if they agree with Trump and if they do, they're gold?
I notice you didn't include Miller. Gee, I wonder why?
Like I said, if they are faced with decisions under stress and accomplish their mission, you’ve got a good one. He/she must be accountable to his/her soldiers beneath them while completing his/her mission. NO ONE LEFT BEHIND is being accountable to the US.
-
10 minutes ago, Leftfield said:
Glad you know all of them, and are here to advise us of their failings.
It’s obvious that Milley and Austin fit that bill. Let others take their place and if they have to make decisions under stress, even you can tell if they are worth their salt. Will Biden make the hard call? Will Milley fall on his sword? How about Austin?
-
11 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:
DAMMIT i was going to get to that…..
Sorry to scoop you.
Larry Elder attacked by a person in a gorilla mask with little or no mention of it from the main stream media!
in Politically Speaking
Posted
I’m not disagreeing here about any of this. Well, except Lincoln was sworn in in March and Fort Sumter was fired upon in April. It did seem to be predestined.