NoCalMike Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 The Republicans that seem so outraged and concerned over Hunter's nepotism hire oddly don't share the same concern about Ivanka, Kushner, & others being hired by Trump despite not being able to pass security clearances. His overriding those checks & balances two bring on two individuals with zero experience. Or perhaps Rudy's son sitting in a nice cushy well paying gov't job might concern them? Oh, No? Huh. If the Republicans are trying to sell the case that a nepotism hire is corruption, (and honestly, I don't know if I would 100% disagree, maybe more cronyism?) then they should in turn be willing to also say that Trump hiring his kids with zero experience is also the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superozman Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 1 hour ago, NoCalMike said: If Gaetz is going to bring up Hunter's substance abuse, it would be prudent for someone to bring up Gaetz's 4 DUIs and ask how he magically received zero punishment for them. Is that an example of cronyism? I read that in fact it was only 1, and the prosecutor dropped it. Which very well could have had something to do with the name, i would assume. Just sharing, not disagreeing with your point because it's valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidFan Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 13 minutes ago, NoCalMike said: The Republicans that seem so outraged and concerned over Hunter's nepotism hire oddly don't share the same concern about Ivanka, Kushner, & others being hired by Trump despite not being able to pass security clearances. His overriding those checks & balances two bring on two individuals with zero experience. Or perhaps Rudy's son sitting in a nice cushy well paying gov't job might concern them? Oh, No? Huh. If the Republicans are trying to sell the case that a nepotism hire is corruption, (and honestly, I don't know if I would 100% disagree, maybe more cronyism?) then they should in turn be willing to also say that Trump hiring his kids with zero experience is also the same thing. The problem is the left won't throw this right back in their faces when they feign such outrage. I get trying to be professional but sometimes you have to punch the bully in the face. And you can do it in a nice Canadian "I'm sooorry" way but then put it on the right to defend the Trump and Rudy kids' appointments, the process of clearances, and experience for job given. Would love to hear Gym and Gaetz and Collins try and defend that. Of course they couldn't so they would just do what idiots do in debates they are losing....speak louder than the person they are debating. Now most people with firing synapses know that just being louder doesn't mean you're right, but the voting partisan sheep of the world just hear the loudest voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 A caller on CSPAN made a good point, the GOP feigning outrage over Biden being on a board despite zero experience? Didn't America just elect someone with........zero experience? The Democrats should make a deal with the GOP: Offer to delay voting on impeachment if Pompeo, Mulvaney, McGhan, & Guiliani all come in to testify? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 12 minutes ago, NoCalMike said: A caller on CSPAN made a good point, the GOP feigning outrage over Biden being on a board despite zero experience? Didn't America just elect someone with........zero experience? The Democrats should make a deal with the GOP: Offer to delay voting on impeachment if Pompeo, Mulvaney, McGhan, & Guiliani all come in to testify? No deals. They won't abide by them. They will say sure, sounds great, then when the time comes none of them will show up, and another tiny little middle finger will come out of the White House. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 14 minutes ago, NoCalMike said: A caller on CSPAN made a good point, the GOP feigning outrage over Biden being on a board despite zero experience? Didn't America just elect someone with........zero experience? The Democrats should make a deal with the GOP: Offer to delay voting on impeachment if Pompeo, Mulvaney, McGhan, & Guiliani all come in to testify? Just now, Bang said: No deals. They won't abide by them. They will say sure, sounds great, then when the time comes none of them will show up, and another tiny little middle finger will come out of the White House. ~Bang Agreed. It doesn't matter anyway. House gonna House, Senate gonna Senate. It's all a done deal for both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 15 minutes ago, Bang said: No deals. They won't abide by them. They will say sure, sounds great, then when the time comes none of them will show up, and another tiny little middle finger will come out of the White House. ~Bang I disagree. You agree to call Hunter Biden if Trump comes and testifies before the House first, no way he resists. Especially if you run a bunch of commercials talking about how he is scared. This is why I have been saying the Dems suck at PR. And I think this is really going to hurt the motivation of Dem voters. You couldn’t figure out how to impeach the most openly corrupt President in US history!?!?!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 Gaetz just took a boot up the a$$ from Hank Johnson. "The pot calling the kettle black is something we should not do." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 What does "Move to strike the last word" mean after being recognized by the chair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 Like Cicilline from RI. He should be a Dem leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 5 minutes ago, Dan T. said: What does "Move to strike the last word" mean after being recognized by the chair? When a member of congress states “I move to strike the last word” it means he or she wants to speak, NBC News reported. The chair then allows the member to speak for five minutes, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 5 minutes ago, Dan T. said: What does "Move to strike the last word" mean after being recognized by the chair? Just a request to speak out of turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 I figured that much. I guess the question is why does “move to strike the last word’ translate to “I would like to speak.” It’s a quirky terminology and I wonder what the origin is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superozman Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 5 minutes ago, Dan T. said: I figured that much. I guess the question is why does “move to strike the last word’ translate to “I would like to speak.” It’s a quirky terminology and I wonder what the origin is. I wondered too. I asked an attorney at work. Per them it's a "stupid annoying loophole". When you modify the articles, or anything else the House will modify, you get 5 minutes to speak for anything you modify. So everyone basically says "I move to strike the last word", and then you can go off on your tangent for 5 minutes. Of course what its supposed to be fore is something like :"I move to strike the 3rd full sentence on the second page 'Superozman is a republican and from Philly and we all hate him' and change it to 'Superozman is a republican and from Philly and we love him because he's still a Redskins fan'", but people use it for their own time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 The Republicans on the committees are going the "if we can't win the argument on facts, lets just be super combative with everything we say" route. Everyone escalates their voice on a sliding scale for their 5 minutes, feigning outrage, bringing up Hunter. It's all nonsense but it makes for good TV for their base when the clips show up on cable news, and make no mistake about it when people claim they are watching the hearings, the reality is they are watching tiny clips mixed for Fox news commentary and then believing they have enough information. The Dems could easily match the combativeness and hostility if they wanted to, fairly easily, but they are choosing to play it with an even keel (for the most part) I am not sure how well that strategy works in 2019 as opposed to 30 years ago, and 60 years ago. I think the Dems assume that because the facts are on their side they don't need the theatrics during the back-and-forths but I have a suspicion that in today's world where everything is a reality show environment, I have to wonder if it would help if Dems started actually going after these cretins. The GOP has shown they have no issue ignoring the merits of the argument and instead going after personal smears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superozman Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 6 minutes ago, NoCalMike said: The Republicans The Dems The Dems don't need any theatrics because it's going to pass the house. So my 100% guess is they are trying to remain calm, as best as possible, to make the R's look foolish. But i'd argue both sides have stated facts. And both sides have stated falsehoods. And both sides have are pushing interpretations for situations that fit their narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 Swalwell bringin' it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 4 minutes ago, superozman said: But i'd argue both sides have stated facts. There go my eyes, rolled right out of their sockets and down the street... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmirOfShmo Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 8 minutes ago, superozman said: The Dems don't need any theatrics because it's going to pass the house. So my 100% guess is they are trying to remain calm, as best as possible, to make the R's look foolish. But i'd argue both sides have stated facts. And both sides have stated falsehoods. And both sides have are pushing interpretations for situations that fit their narrative. I'd like to see that list of Republican facts that were stated in these hearings - that support letting Trump off the hook. Not hearsay, but facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, EmirOfShmo said: I'd like to see that list of Republican facts that were stated in these hearings - that support letting Trump off the hook. Not hearsay, but facts. The Republicans didn't even use hearsay. They adopted straight up debunked misinformation and when that didn't work invented bull**** on the spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 3 hours ago, visionary said: Didn't Nunes supposedly call Parnas' wife? Please tell me he called her a cow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 I too would like to know any facts the republicans have used in these proceedings that would further their case that the president is innocent. They say his name a lot, and they are right in that it is "Trump". is this one of those facts? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.