Jump to content

TahoeHorn

banned
  • Posts

    617
  • Joined

Everything posted by TahoeHorn

  1. It wasn't. I had no one in particular in mind. This site is full of Leonards. I read the article, laughed and posted it for others to laugh.
  2. One of the interesting questions will be how to play Trump. The Democrats need to run against Trump, but not too much. Obviously the Republicans need to do the opposite. Trump is unpopular but the public isn't ready to impeach. The White House is trying to get the Dems to overplay their hand, and make the election about a Trump impeachment. That would produce a backlash and drive an angry right to the polls. Dem strategists are trying hard to develop an anti-Trump message which doesn't suggest that the Dems are trying to impeach Trump. GOP candidates aren't as enthusiastic about running on Trump. If the Dems overplay their hand they want to run on impeachment fears. But most smart GOPP folk seem to think that strategy requires the Dems to move first and to overreach. If the GOP tries to create the issue out of whole cloth like the White House seems to want it won't work unless the Dems take the bait.
  3. I don't need an answer. And it wasn't posted for the benefit of those of you who are Leonard. It was posted for those on the board who aren't Leonard but know Leonards. I'm listening to their chuckles.
  4. Which one of you guys is Leonard? http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article210497509.html ☺️
  5. http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/386409-mueller-puts-politics-above-the-law
  6. I watch her more than you think. But like me sometime she's giving her real views and sometimes she's talking smack with a twinkle in her eye. She's worth watching in the first case but not in the last. You should learn how satellite works.
  7. One more thing: I know how the Right and Center think much better than I know how the Left thinks. I hear the candid views of many people on the Right. I have much much less access to the candid views of people on the Left. I come to this board mostly to hear those views. My comments are designed largely to solicit the type of views I don't hear in my daily life, or if I do are by nuts or are not candid. Hornfans, Shaggy and Surly have all had some good posters on the Right. I don't pay so much attention to them. I have access to massive numbers (relatively speaking) of people on the Right.
  8. I'm sure everyone uses people's posting history differently. I use it to decide whether I want to read it or skim it. It's the same criteria I use to decide whether I want to read the National Review or the New York Times, and whether I read InfoWars or the National Enquirer. I read the National Review and the New York Times. I don't read InfoWars or the National Enquirer. The political slant of the article is not a prime consideration in whether I read it. I want a variety of political slants. My prime consideration is whether I trust the underlying facts if there are any. Opinions I don't like are fine. In fact I may be more inclined to read an opinion which is not in lock-step with mine. What's not fine are lies or misrepresentations of the underlying facts. I watch more CNN than Fox. I watch This Week without fail even though it is heavily slanted left. I usually know which panelists are which. I'm not troubled if the host and three of four panelists are left. I'm more troubled if they say things I know they don't believe. I find some CNN and some Fox unwatchable.
  9. Read what I said CAREFULLY. Try. Now take this quiz: Who did I say doesn't get what I say? A. Everyone, or B. You. I know who on this board can pass this quiz and who can't. I'll give you the key phrase with a big hint to try to make it easy: You can't even get my arguments straight
  10. If anyone has a strong knowledge of a subject they are generally appalled by what they read or hear about it in the media. The media don't lie, but the crew up little facts and they have a bias. In the end, the story they tell is not a fair picture of what happened. If you know a lot about widget making and you see a report on a problem with widgets you'll be snarling about all things that are misleading. The reporter will say something about widgets and you'll say to yourself "Yeah, that's generally true about widgets, but it's not true for blue widgets, and the widget in the report is a blue widget. The reporter doesn't know enough about widgets or he wants to misrepresent things to get a better story. It's not clear. But it's clear that the story is "horribad".
  11. You can't even get my arguments straight when it's from the same day and you're looking at the post. I'll repeat: There are decisions we should make with a partial set of info and some we should make with all the info. As an example I have many judgements I'll make against the head of the Gambino crime family with what little I know. But I would wait for a hard case before I made a decision to imprison him. As I sit here I don't have that info.
  12. I said the opposite. He can't shut it down for that reason. But there is a long list of reasons he can shut it down for. We have to know why he wants it shut down. And Mueller will be able to tell us. He'll find what Trump doesn't want found or he'll tell us nothing is there - that Trump just doesn't like being investigated. Who does?
  13. You need to explain why he didn't want Comey looking into the Russia thing. If it was to stop him from finding out about bad things which Trump or his family did then it's corrupt. If it's to stop damage to foreign relations then that's absolutely something a President should do. Why did/does he want the Russia thing stopped? Is it to cover up a bad thing or to give the President back his bully pulpit? Is it to protect him from massive embarrassment or is it to improve relations with a dangerous foe? We need to know in order to understand whether he is engaging in obstruction.
  14. This has not been shown yet. If Trump did nothing unseemly and he's mad because the investigation reflects poorly on him (it does), damages his ability to govern (it does), damages his chance to get reelected (it does) and damages his chances of improving relations with Russia (it does), then it would be totally appropriate for him to block the investigation. He is the top executive. He can have reasons you hate. But he can't have corrupt reasons. You haven't shown me the personal interest it could harm. The reasons listed above don't qualify. Those are the legitimate interests of the President, not Trump the man.
  15. Yes. Executives are fired by the thousands for reasons like that. If the Ambassador to France doesn't get along with the French you might fire him to make the French happy. That's not wrong. It might be right. But if you have a deal with the French to get a nice free estate on the Riviera and in return the French want a policy opposed by the Ambassador, you've got a problem. It hinges on whether the reason is corrupt. Show me the corruption. Look, Mueller knows right now whether it was corrupt or not. We'll find out. We don't really know. Those who hate Trump are sure it was. Those who like him are sure it wasn't. Even if I were sure it was I would want to wait for the evidence from Mueller. Just like if I'm sure some heinous criminal is guilty I want to wait for the trial. Our democracy demands that we do that. I would VASTLY prefer Pence to Trump. If the system had me choose I'd dump Trump. But those are not the rules. We need to provide the real evidence to the public.
  16. That is the prerogative of the President unless it is for a corrupt reason. You need to explain your evidence of corruption.
  17. Bull shit. I explained very clearly that I used the same standard for the Democrats (people like Lois Lerner) and heads of Mafia families. I use it in life. There are some decisions we should make with partial information and judgement. There are other decisions which require getting the real facts. Removing a President from office requires the facts. We'll have them when Mueller reports. I doubt if we will before then. Trump's inappropriate behavior is not impeachable. His bizarre behavior will be impeachable if it is proven to be corrupt. There is no or scant evidence that it is corrupt. Only strong suspicion. (e.g. "He must have some deal with Putin" or "He The Russians must be blackmailing him".) Again I challenge you to list an impeachable offense and your evidence. For example if you think firing Comey was obstruction of justice tell me your evidence that it is corrupt. Show me a deal with Russia or how he was protecting himself. Suppose he had pardoned Flynn. Would that have been an impeachable offense? Show me something that isn't legal executive discretion, even if inappropriate unwise or sleazy.
  18. What would you do right now if you were given the power to act as a judge of Trump. What action would you take and what would you base it on? What evidence do you think you KNOW that warrants your decision?
  19. If you gave me the power to go back in time and imprison or remove from office based on "high crimes and misdemeanors", there is no one in the Clinton or Obama Administration that I would use my power on. I don't have the real facts. There are many cases where I feel a crime was committed (e.g. the IRS stuff, Clinton's emails) but I don't have the actual facts.
  20. This is not a unique circumstance in our legal system. Almost every trial works this way. We read in the papers of an indictment of, say, John Gotti, head of the Gambino crime family. Now I've got a damn good idea that he's guilty but at the time of the indictment I have no real facts. A massive amount of smoke, but no fire. And if I'm on the jury I'll await the facts.
  21. I agree. Now tell me what you know. No guessing. You have to prepare the exhibit to be used at a trial. You know zip. Look whenever the Feds indict somebody I'm pretty sure they're guilty. They have an awesome hit rate. If my neighbor were indicted I'd treat him like he were guilty. But if I'm on the jury I'm waiting for the facts. Right now I have almost no facts.
  22. I totally believe that Vekselberg was stopped at JFK and had his electronic devices imaged. I have no idea whether that showed anything bad for Trump. Maybe one day I'll learn what was on those electronic devices and will have an opinion.
  23. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama
  24. You boys are wallowing in the weeds. Big picture, Trump is going down or surviving based on whether Mueller finds something that turns our stomach. I think you'll know when you see it whether it meets the test.
  25. He won't. He wants a following and money. He has to have an argument to get money. But he won't run. Most all the people who followed him have found a new standard bearer for their dreams. And there is no shortage of people ready to assume the mantle. All movements with a leader find a new leader when something happens to their leader. Roy Moore was effectively shot. The dreams of his followers were not linked to him. There are dozens of others trying to take his place.
×
×
  • Create New...