• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Democrats call for 'emergency hearing' after Sessions outing

Mach said:
Because he too, like most of the nation, is a victim of the baby-Trump's tantrum in the White House.
Sessions, unlike Trump, did the right thing with regards to the Mueller probe, he recused. Trump, has not done the right thing(s), routinely.

Jeff Sessions recused himself appropriately, and Trump bullied him like a giant ass-faced moron day after day, and he just took it. Yeah, Sessions, despite disagreeing with him, is just another Victim of Trumps stupidity, and that earns him a bit of respect.

You seem awfully close to understanding the fact that Trump is way off the reservation. We dislike Sessions and his policy, but he's still acting mostly like a decent human being and professional.
If Trump could do that too, he might be tolerated by more people, but he chooses not to.

If you call that Democratic way of thinking, then you guys are in worse shape than I imagined.
Click to expand...

I'm not looking at this as a republican, but more as a third party member. What these love, hate relationships point out to me is the lack of consistency, the changing of stances to suit either parties want for a political advantage. I suppose one could even call these hypercritical stances. Love Comey when he is on your side, hate him when he isn't. Party their doesn't matter. Sessions is the same as is the debt ceiling votes to come back to an issue. Stances and defense and or trying to destroy Bill Clinton over several women's allegations, stances and defense of Kavanaugh over basically or close to the same allegations. I see no firm beliefs from either party, call them core values. The only value I see is using whatever comes up for political advantages in either retaining or gaining power. I see both parties changing their views, their stances,180 degrees, all depending on how they can get a political advantage.

If a party is against raising the debt ceiling ala Democrats during Bush, Republicans during Obama, then regardless of the president, they should continue to be against raising the debt ceiling. If a party defends Bill Clinton against sexual allegations or tries to destroy, then they should be taking the same stances against Kavanaugh. If a party wants Comey or Sessions retained or fired, then they should retain those wants. That's all I'm saying. To do anything different is highly hypercritical and shows the lack of substance, core values or in a way a denial of what each party says they believe in.
 
Jeff Sessions outing
Click to expand...

Are you saying he's gay?

Well, he's certainly very limp-wristed, at any rate.

Most under-performing AG ever.
 
sanman said:
Are you saying he's gay?

Well, he's certainly very limp-wristed, at any rate.

Most under-performing AG ever.
Click to expand...

How so? Other then recusing himself in the Mueller investigation ( which was the correct thing to do) he pretty much killed it or Trumps agenda.
 
Perotista said:
I'm not looking at this as a republican, but more as a third party member. What these love, hate relationships point out to me is the lack of consistency, the changing of stances to suit either parties want for a political advantage.
Click to expand...
And yet humans in reality routinely love/hate, support/reject. I'd say it's how humans behave.
Everyone knows we love a good fall from grace, followed by redemption story. <- that's exactly what you're claiming is just political calculus?
You think I'm part of political calculus...I have some compassion for Jeff because I'm somehow coordinating messaging with the Democratic party!?!?

I suppose one could even call these hypercritical stances. Love Comey when he is on your side, hate him when he isn't.
Click to expand...
Or more simply, love it when Comey does the right thing, hate him when he does the wrong thing. If Republicans view right/wrong as politically good/bad, there's your problem.

If a party is against raising the debt ceiling ala Democrats during Bush, Republicans during Obama, then regardless of the president, they should continue to be against raising the debt ceiling. If a party defends Bill Clinton against sexual allegations or tries to destroy, then they should be taking the same stances against Kavanaugh. If a party wants Comey or Sessions retained or fired, then they should retain those wants. That's all I'm saying. To do anything different is highly hypercritical and shows the lack of substance, core values or in a way a denial of what each party says they believe in.
Click to expand...
Debt propaganda is certainly a political game. Republicans ran the tea party nonsense that opposed the debt as their core tennant. And Republicans always use debt as an excuse why they dno't want to allow social programs.
But then they give tax cuts to the wealthy which effectively also increase the debt.

No, Republicnas on that last one are the big crazies. Democrats are consistent with being comfortable with tax increases for the rich, increased spending on infrastructure and health care, as long as they are good investments, it will pay off in the long-term...they believe.
 
SCrider said:
How so? Other then recusing himself in the Mueller investigation ( which was the correct thing to do) he pretty much killed it or Trumps agenda.
Click to expand...


He should have never recused himself. Democrats falsely alleged that Sessions was conniving with Russia because they wanted to get a Special Prosecutor for the purpose of derailing the elected leader of the United States. Sessions meekly complied with their agenda, instead of appropriately opposing it. If this is the legitimate way to do things, then I want every Democrat POTUS to be accused of something along with his AG, so that we can have Special Prosecutor all the time, with every administration. The Special Prosecutor game is clearly a constitutional loophole, that can be used to thwart the electoral verdict of the country - and that's what's been done in this instance.
 
Mach said:
****ing Duh, she was confirmed as the DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL. You know, 2nd in line if something happens to the AG? Again, executive order can move her to acting attorney general *without further senate confirmation* The same cannot be said from the political appointment of Whittaker. Furthermore, such appointments are made for people whose CURRENT JOB in that department required and received senate confirmation. Whittaker, was holding no such job at the time of his appointment.
Click to expand...

Once again, that's patently false. Please look up the Presidential Vacancies Act. The same law that says Yates could be appointed acting AG says that Whittaker can be.
 
HumblePi said:
I'm only going to assume, since there's no documentation online of his being 'Senate confirmed' for his position as the Attorney General of the Southern District of Iowa, that it didn't require confirmation by any U.S. Senate due to the fact he was 'appointed' by Presidential Bush versus being 'nominated' by a President for the same position. Of course an appointment and a nomination are two different things, the former I presume does not need a confirmation hearing while the latter does.

In addition to his association with Sam Clovis, (he was his campaign manager in 2014 when Clovis ran for state treasurer in Iowa), Sam Clovis was also listed an unnamed "campaign supervisor" in the indictment of former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos. In addition to those entanglements, Matthew Whitaker was a CNN contributor and as such was very critical of the Mueller.

Whitaker had also written an op-ed piece for CNN in August, 2017, just one month before coming aboard to the Justice Dept.

“It does not take a lawyer or even a former federal prosecutor like myself to conclude that investigating Donald Trump’s finances or his family’s finances falls completely outside the realm of his 2016 campaign and allegations that the campaign coordinated with the Russian government or anyone else,” “It is time for [Deputy AG Rod] Rosenstein, who is the acting attorney general for the purposes of this investigation to order Mueller to limit the scope of his investigation to the four corners of the order appointing him special counsel,” he wrote. “If he doesn’t, then Mueller’s investigation will eventually start to look like a political fishing expedition.”

So as you can see, it's a little more complicated than merely having 'a working relationship' with Sam Clovis.
Click to expand...

Nope. Commenting on the handling of the investigation doesn't in itself create a conflict of interest. In fact, his comments are pretty much on point, and seem to reflect, at least in part, what Rosenstein did.
 
Mach said:
And yet humans in reality routinely love/hate, support/reject. I'd say it's how humans behave.
Everyone knows we love a good fall from grace, followed by redemption story. <- that's exactly what you're claiming is just political calculus?
You think I'm part of political calculus...I have some compassion for Jeff because I'm somehow coordinating messaging with the Democratic party!?!?


Or more simply, love it when Comey does the right thing, hate him when he does the wrong thing. If Republicans view right/wrong as politically good/bad, there's your problem.


Debt propaganda is certainly a political game. Republicans ran the tea party nonsense that opposed the debt as their core tennant. And Republicans always use debt as an excuse why they dno't want to allow social programs.
But then they give tax cuts to the wealthy which effectively also increase the debt.

No, Republicnas on that last one are the big crazies. Democrats are consistent with being comfortable with tax increases for the rich, increased spending on infrastructure and health care, as long as they are good investments, it will pay off in the long-term...they believe.
Click to expand...

As to the debt, I will agree tax cuts was the last thing this country needed. what should have happened was a combination of deep spending cuts and tax increases in my opinion or we'll be falling into that financial abyss that might make the great depression look like a walk in the park. The problem comes from Democrats never going to agree on spending, perhaps defense is the exception and Republicans not going to agree on any tax increases. we also need to get away with looking at the tax rates and figuring that is the taxes people will pay.

A rich person in the top tax bracket can lower his effective tax rate down to 15% and sometimes less through being able to pay for great accountants and tax lawyers whereas those in the 15% tax rate bracket most of the time end up paying the 15%/ We should be more interested in the effective tax rate that just what percentage are the brackets. My opinion anyway.

Yes too on Reagan being the first to bust the budget with huge deficit spending and huge increases in the national debt. But the Democratic controlled house and Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neal went right along helping to both smiling along with Reagan while they did it. Bush I and the Democratic controlled congress continued with that nonsense. Only Bill Clinton and then the Republican controlled congress did anything about it. With Bush II and Obama, regardless of who controlled congress, it was the same as Tip and Ronnie.

So when I come to the conclusion that neither party give a whimper or a fart about the ever rising national debt at the expense of our kids, grand kids and the unborn, it is true. Actions speaks louder than words or campaign rhetoric.
 
Tangmo said:
The Right Whinge has a conflict of interest here.

A self-contradiction while they pretend to be straight, true and pure. Some over there actually aren't pretending either cause they truly believe they are rock solid moral exemplars.

The Right liked Sessions when ol' Jeff endorsed Trump during the campaign. Put on the Maga cap he did. Then you guyz went against Sessions when he became AG and recused himself. So you were for Sessions before you were against him.

Comey wuz your guy over there when he resurrected the emails just before the election. Then Comey wasn't your guy when he wouldn't let it go on Flynn who Potus said was a good Ivan so go easy on him. You all cheered when Potus canned Comey. So Comey is another guy you were for before you were against.

The Right was all for Jim "Mad Dog" Mattis when Potus appointed him SecDef but all the good things at Pentagon and in the armed services since have come from Potus Himself and Only. The Right used to sing Putin's praises -- the chessmaster strategist blah blah -- but since the Trump-Wikileaks-Putin axis formed you've gone silent on the whole of it. Nunes recused himself then he unrecused himself to dump a doctored dossier the Right Whinge cheered mightily and ran with for months of shameless mangling...then another, neither of which changed anything to your liking.

There's more but in the interest of attention span we can stop here for now. No pictures or cartoons to this post either so we'll really have to stop here. Oh and I almost forgot, the Right Whinge was for hearings before you finally turned against 'em just now.
Click to expand...

Any more stereotyping false assumptions in your rambling pile of bull**** you want to trot out or are you done?
 
Anthony60 said:
Such steadfast integrity she has! God, she's a POS. The worst thing is, she talks out of both sides of her mouth, and the low information types clap either way. What a pathetic circle jerk.
Click to expand...

Oh and this, too:

Pelosi on Sessions.jpg
 
Perotista said:
Same, same for the Democrats on Comey, he was the Democrat's guy when he said Clinton wouldn't be charged, the GOP wanted him fired. Then he reopened the E-mail case, this time the Republicans loved and the Democrats wanted him fired. Then Trump fired him, the Dems were back to loving him.

Yes, the GOP loved Sessions when he first endorsed Trump and fought hard for his confirmation while the Democrats hated him and fought him him every step of the way. Then Sessions fell out of favor with Trump, now both parties basically wanted him gone. So he finally resigns, now the Democrats love him. Only two or three days ago, they were trying to discredit and destroy him. Now you'd think Sessions was the best AG this country ever had, at least according to the Dems.

I'm used to all this switching, using what ever pops up for purely political reasons or trying to gain a political advantage by one party over the other. You seen how the Democrats defended Bill Clinton to the max trying to discredit and at times destroy all those women who brought up allegations against Bill Hillary led the charge in trying to destroy those women. Then those same Democrats who were around and defended Bill jumped on Kavanaugh with allegations close to the same. The opposite was true with Republicans, they tried to use all those allegations against Bill to destroy him and then turned around and defended Kavanaugh to the max. All for political advantage.

Neither party really stands for anything except gaining or retaining political power. If they did there would no changing their love hate with Comey or Session or determining which allegations to believe or not with Bill and Kavanaugh. They would treat everyone the same. On an issue dear to me, the debt, explain why Democrats almost to the max voted against raising the debt ceiling while Republicans voted to raise almost to the max during G.W. Bush. Then change presidents, it the Republicans voting almost in mass not to raise it during Obama and almost all Democrats voting to raise it. Where is the core belief in all of this? Neither party believes in anything outside of getting or retaining power, that is the bottom line for both or one would be consistent in what they do and how they vote regardless who is president or about whether one is a Republican or a Democrat when allegations are issued.

Personally, I have no use for either major party, both should be thrown on the trash heap of history.
Click to expand...

OpportunityCost said:
Any more stereotyping false assumptions in your rambling pile of bull**** you want to trot out or are you done?
Click to expand...

As we see above what some call rambling others call a discussion or discourse regardless of how right or wrong it may be, or somewhere in between. It presents at the least something to consider, perhaps even think about to perhaps construct something in reply or response. So your post misses the opportunity and it misses it at a great cost. Not for the first time either I should add.

Regardless, reading the posts I get the definite stench of a one party state brewing in the pots on the stove. Potus Himself insists democrats are not fit to govern which implies directly Democrats are not suitable to voting either. In fact I haven't heard the Right Whinge defend voting or say anything good about democracy and voting for a very long time now. Ne c'est pas.

Republicans have a definite dislike of the popular vote in any race or election. I suppose it could be understandable given Republicans have lost the popular vote in six of the past seven elections of the Potus. You guys promote instead the republic mode while arguing erroneously the Founders never trusted democracy in the least bit. I haven't any doubt either your new republic will have the word 'democratic' in it all the same. And we know that any republic that has the name democratic in it is anything but. People's democratic republic blah blah etc.
 
Tangmo said:
As we see above what some call rambling others call a discussion or discourse regardless of how right or wrong it may be, or somewhere in between. It presents at the least something to consider, perhaps even think about to perhaps construct something in reply or response. So your post misses the opportunity and it misses it at a great cost. Not for the first time either I should add.

Regardless, reading the posts I get the definite stench of a one party state brewing in the pots on the stove. Potus Himself insists democrats are not fit to govern which implies directly Democrats are not suitable to voting either. In fact I haven't heard the Right Whinge defend voting or say anything good about democracy and voting for a very long time now. Ne c'est pas.

Republicans have a definite dislike of the popular vote in any race or election. I suppose it could be understandable given Republicans have lost the popular vote in six of the past seven elections of the Potus. You guys promote instead the republic mode while arguing erroneously the Founders never trusted democracy in the least bit. I haven't any doubt either your new republic will have the word 'democratic' in it all the same. And we know that any republic that has the name democratic in it is anything but. People's democratic republic blah blah etc.
Click to expand...

It still stands I have no use for any political parties that goes by when my guy does something it is always good and needs defending and when the other guy of the other party does basically the same thing, it is evil and wrong and he should be thrown to the wolves.

Both parties operate this way. No core values, just whatever works to gain or retain political power. As for voting, I think our elected officials regardless of party should vote in the manner the people of their district or state wants them to. Not following the party line. We elected them to represent us, not their political party.

I don't know if one party fears the popular vote or not or just uses it for their own good or a way to obtain power. Both parties try to manipulate the voters, to get them to vote for their candidates with all sorts of asinine accusations. Far as I'm concern, Republicans are no more fit to govern than Democrats and vice versa. My life hasn't changed one iota from Obama to Trump. It really hasn't change from IKE on regardless of who was president, who was in control of congress. I grew up under Eisenhower and as far as I'm concerned, he is still the best president of my lifetime.

Was I upset when Trump won, no. Surprised yes, upset no. I wasn't upset when Obama won or when G.W. Bush won or when Bill Clinton won and on back. There are some I would rather the guy won, but was happy to accept who did win as the winner and president. That seems lacking today.
 
Perotista said:
It still stands I have no use for any political parties that goes by when my guy does something it is always good and needs defending and when the other guy of the other party does basically the same thing, it is evil and wrong and he should be thrown to the wolves.

Both parties operate this way. No core values, just whatever works to gain or retain political power. As for voting, I think our elected officials regardless of party should vote in the manner the people of their district or state wants them to. Not following the party line. We elected them to represent us, not their political party.

I don't know if one party fears the popular vote or not or just uses it for their own good or a way to obtain power. Both parties try to manipulate the voters, to get them to vote for their candidates with all sorts of asinine accusations. Far as I'm concern, Republicans are no more fit to govern than Democrats and vice versa. My life hasn't changed one iota from Obama to Trump. It really hasn't change from IKE on regardless of who was president, who was in control of congress. I grew up under Eisenhower and as far as I'm concerned, he is still the best president of my lifetime.

Was I upset when Trump won, no. Surprised yes, upset no. I wasn't upset when Obama won or when G.W. Bush won or when Bill Clinton won and on back. There are some I would rather the guy won, but was happy to accept who did win as the winner and president. That seems lacking today.
Click to expand...


Truman was the first Potus I remember by name. Ike was eminently reasonable and JKF was awesomely dynamic but ill. LBJ was master of the congress and enacting legislation post JFK but he was not the master of his own fate. Nixon had few if any redeeming features. One could go on. In my time best Potus are JFK and Obama with Reagan on the outside still gaining.

My point stands that those who condemn party politics in democracies tend strongly to prefer the one party state where all is decided and done with forthwith. I think of Franco and Mussolini most prominently in the modern era of the four isms that emerged in the mid 19th century: capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism. Each has evolved yet only communism/authoritarianism and fascism/authoritarianism require the one party state. There are few communists left these dayze. Which leaves only fascism. In the 21st century we have fascism with Chinese characteristics; likewise in Russia with Putin characteristics. And presently we have the uniquely American fascism of Trump and Fanboyz. The single party state is common to each of 'em in one way, shape or form or another.
 
Tangmo said:
Truman was the first Potus I remember by name. Ike was eminently reasonable and JKF was awesomely dynamic but ill. LBJ was master of the congress and enacting legislation post JFK but he was not the master of his own fate. Nixon had few if any redeeming features. One could go on. In my time best Potus are JFK and Obama with Reagan on the outside still gaining.

My point stands that those who condemn party politics in democracies tend strongly to prefer the one party state where all is decided and done with forthwith. I think of Franco and Mussolini most prominently in the modern era of the four isms that emerged in the mid 19th century: capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism. Each has evolved yet only communism/authoritarianism and fascism/authoritarianism require the one party state. There are few communists left these dayze. Which leaves only fascism. In the 21st century we have fascism with Chinese characteristics; likewise in Russia with Putin characteristics. And presently we have the uniquely American fascism of Trump and Fanboyz. The single party state is common to each of 'em in one way, shape or form or another.
Click to expand...

I was born right after WWII, too young to personally remember anything about Truman. IKE I do. IKE and JFK are numbers one and two on my list of best presidents, Bill Clinton and Reagan three and four depending on the day or four and three. On the bottom are Carter and Ford, followed by Obama and Bush II. Again depending on the day three and four might be reversed.

Nixon is an enigma. He is always referred to as a conservative. Yet he opened up Red China, gave us the EPA, OSHA, the endangered species act, imposed wage and price controls, allocated funds for education, was all for affirmative action, at least domestically, Nixon governed as a liberal. He was certainly on the left of any president since FDR with the possible exception of LBJ. Funny how everyone considers him a conservative.

I really dislike both of our major parties. I dislike having only a choice between extreme left and extreme right or being governed from the extremes. I'd love to see a third viable party somewhere in-between the Republican and Democratic Parties. You probably remember when our major parties, each had their conservative and liberal wings. They were a moderating force on their politics. The old Rockefeller liberal Republicans of the Northeast, the conservative Democrats of the south. Then the Democrats shed their conservative wing and the GOP to their liberal wing to get lost. Now each party is in the process of getting rid of all their moderates. Of the people who were willing to work across the aisle. Who would play the game of give and take, compromise to keep this nation moving forward. Now both parties would whether take zero, nothing than compromise and give the other party 10% of what they want in order to get 90% of what you want.

In our two party system, Republican and Democratic parties have a monopoly even as they both are becoming extreme left and right parties. Our system prevents the rise of more moderate parties. There's nothing wrong with having extreme left and right parties if there are a couple of other parties in the center, center right or center left. Our system prevents that, it preserves and protects our two major parties even as they both become more and more extreme. This is why I think both major parties are shrinking. Independents have risen from 30% of the electorate in 2006 to 43% today. At least according to Gallup and Pew Research. Even so, our two major parties have all the power over our electoral system.
 
Harshaw said:
It really isn't.

His sole argument is that it's unconstitutional if the Senate doesn't confirm.

No one, including Conway, objected to Sally Yates being appointed Acting Attorney General in 2017, and in fact, she was a hero when she ordered the Justice Department not to enforce Trump's first travel ban order. She was never confirmed by the Senate.

If it's unconstitutional in this case, it was unconstitutional then. But no one even whispered about it at the time.

Nor did they when any other Acting Attorney General was appointed temporarily without Senate confirmation.

And if his argument really held water, then 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3345(a)(3) is unconstitutional. He didn't argue that it was. In fact, he explicitly dismissed any arguments concerning that section of law.

(And people like to credit the argument entirely to Conway because he's married to Kellyanne Conway, but he wasn't the sole, or even apparently the principal, author of the piece.)
Click to expand...

Since sally Yates was Senate confirmed back in 2015...find another arguement.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00177
 
upsideguy said:
So, unless you would like to post your law degree here or give us some other support for the bolded statement, it stands incorrect. While the appointment MIGHT survive a challenge on its constitutionality, it ain't slam dunk that it would. Hence, it legitimacy remains questionable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/opinion/trump-attorney-general-sessions-unconstitutional.html

https://www.lawfareblog.com/matthew...ng-attorney-general-three-lingering-questions

https://www.govexec.com/management/...onstitutionality-trumps-new-acting-ag/152689/
Click to expand...

LOL...So, now I must have a law degree to post my opinion on an opinion message board, but you need not have one to post your opinion...That's funny right there....
 
j-mac said:
LOL...So, now I must have a law degree to post my opinion on an opinion message board, but you need not have one to post your opinion...That's funny right there....
Click to expand...

No, but if your post is ONLY your opinion and you have no particular expertise in the area, the opinion isn't worth much as its likely wrong, in all or part. If you don't have the expertise, you better find an expert (3rd party evdience) to back-up you opinion when called on it or your opinion is not worth the cyber-space it occupies.

I don't care what you opinion is, but it better be rooted in fact.
 
upsideguy said:
No, but if your post is ONLY your opinion and you have no particular expertise in the area, the opinion isn't worth much as its likely wrong, in all or part. If you don't have the expertise, you better find an expert (3rd party evdience) to back-up you opinion when called on it or your opinion is not worth the cyber-space it occupies.

I don't care what you opinion is, but it better be rooted in fact.
Click to expand...

Ok, nice talking with you....Stay classy.
 
j-mac said:
Ok, nice talking with you....Stay classy.
Click to expand...

Wow, you took that the wrong way. I was merely stating any opinion, regardless of what it is, needs to be rooted in fact. Sorry that came across the wrong way....

If you are going to comment on a matter of law and you are not a lawyer, you better be able to defend your comments with an opinion from a lawyer. This is debate, which means assertions need to be defended with substantive evidential matter when challenged. Your (or my) pedestrian opinions on something on which we lack expertise are irrelevant in debate.

....and, I shall remain classy.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Wow, you took that the wrong way. I was merely stating any opinion, regardless of what it is, needs to be rooted in fact. Sorry that came across the wrong way....

If you are going to comment on a matter of law and you are not a lawyer, you better be able to defend your comments with an opinion from a lawyer. This is debate, which means assertions need to be defended with substantive evidential matter when challenged. Your (or my) pedestrian opinions on something on which we lack expertise are irrelevant in debate.

....and, I shall remain classy.
Click to expand...

Well, sometimes I feel like looking up opinions to give to you, and sometimes I don't...I suspect that you or anyone else is much the same in the long time we have both been in here....Not a whole lot of anything I give you are you going to consider as objective, so why should I bother...Hmmm? Why? to waste the time?

Look, I am sure you are a nice person in RL, probably wouldn't mind having a beer or two..But, this is pointless...Trump acted within his prerogative, and liberals are having a cow like they do for nearly everything these days...Take my opinions, or don't I really don't care....
 
j-mac said:
Well, sometimes I feel like looking up opinions to give to you, and sometimes I don't...I suspect that you or anyone else is much the same in the long time we have both been in here....Not a whole lot of anything I give you are you going to consider as objective, so why should I bother...Hmmm? Why? to waste the time?

Look, I am sure you are a nice person in RL, probably wouldn't mind having a beer or two..But, this is pointless...Trump acted within his prerogative, and liberals are having a cow like they do for nearly everything these days...Take my opinions, or don't I really don't care....
Click to expand...

Because if its from a legitimate source, I do consider it. I don't know about you, but I like to learn. If someone can show me I am wrong about something, particularly factual, I want to know about it. Every now and then someone "beats me" in a debate by pointing out a factual error in my thinking.

I generally fact check posts I make, before I make them. I also provide lots of links. If I make a claim, I want people to see where I got the idea. I call out (and will continue to do so) claims made by others that are not supported in their posts. I want 1) to know where they got the idea they did and 2) don't like intellectual sloppiness (I heard it somewhere, so it must be true).

This particular issue is indeed "debatable".... Trump made a very bold (ballsy / arrogant) move, but he MAY have made the move in error. If someone tells me he has an "absolute right to do it", I want to know where the hell that got such an idea (see 1 and 2 above). There are clearly good arguments on both sides of the ball here. However, before I go too far in debating someone on this, I want to know they have done more work then to hear it from Hannity.

...and, I am a nice guy... and enjoy discussing politics over a beer, even with people I don't agree with. I find "debate" a great intellectual exercise.... at least with people that are willing to back up their statements.
 
upsideguy said:
Because if its from a legitimate source, I do consider it. I don't know about you, but I like to learn. If someone can show me I am wrong about something, particularly factual, I want to know about it. Every now and then someone "beats me" in a debate by pointing out a factual error in my thinking.

I generally fact check posts I make, before I make them. I also provide lots of links. If I make a claim, I want people to see where I got the idea. I call out (and will continue to do so) claims made by others that are not supported in their posts. I want 1) to know where they got the idea they did and 2) don't like intellectual sloppiness (I heard it somewhere, so it must be true).

This particular issue is indeed "debatable".... Trump made a very bold (ballsy / arrogant) move, but he MAY have made the move in error. If someone tells me he has an "absolute right to do it", I want to know where the hell that got such an idea (see 1 and 2 above). There are clearly good arguments on both sides of the ball here. However, before I go too far in debating someone on this, I want to know they have done more work then to hear it from Hannity.

...and, I am a nice guy... and enjoy discussing politics over a beer, even with people I don't agree with. I find "debate" a great intellectual exercise.... at least with people that are willing to back up their statements.
Click to expand...

Ok, have a nice night....;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom