Closed Thread
Page 1452 of 1501 FirstFirst ... 452 952 1352 1402 1442 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1462 ... LastLast
Results 36,276 to 36,300 of 37508

Thread: Election 2016

  1. #36276
    Get Off My Lawn. Maynerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by jlw1980 View Post
    It's more than hyperbole. They weren't even close to running out of formal gowns. He doesn't care if anything is truth before he spouts it. I mean, obviously this isn't a big issue. Why make stuff up? It's bizarre.
    I fully agree. It speaks to overall ethics and integrity, and lies such as this are totally unnecessary toward advancing any sort of agenda. He needs to stop.


    Hard to believe I was mocked on this exact forum for pointing out lies about Edmund Hillary and being broke amounting to "not caring if anything is truth." The majority of those who voted sent a message, loud and clear, that lies like this don't matter.


    If you voted for Hillary, you cannot get upset about lies about dress inventory in DC. You've established a standard of acceptable truth, and Trump is within that standard.


    If you did NOT vote for either Hillary or Trump, you have the ability to complain about the lies without having changed your position.

    "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
    - President Barack Obama

  2. #36277

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    I fully agree. It speaks to overall ethics and integrity, and lies such as this are totally unnecessary toward advancing any sort of agenda. He needs to stop.


    Hard to believe I was mocked on this exact forum for pointing out lies about Edmund Hillary and being broke amounting to "not caring if anything is truth." The majority of those who voted sent a message, loud and clear, that lies like this don't matter.


    If you voted for Hillary, you cannot get upset about lies about dress inventory in DC. You've established a standard of acceptable truth, and Trump is within that standard.


    If you did NOT vote for either Hillary or Trump, you have the ability to complain about the lies without having changed your position.
    I'm happy for you that you've created a logic bubble for you to live in in which you get to still whine about Clinton while pretending you're talking about Trump, whom I don't think you care one inch about one way or the other.

    What a phony.

  3. #36278
    NYYF Legend

    ojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    baltimore, md

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    Immensely qualified - yes and no. Civilian control of the military is a bedrock American principle, and, with the single exception of George Marshall, being a career military officer has been considered a disqualification. It was written into law with some wiggle room, but to call Matiis "immensely qualified" is true only if you ignore the fact that he's disqualified - by tradition, by principle, and by law.
    Thank you.

    But hey, maybe Trump can tweet some more deflections so that the media gets distracted some more.

  4. #36279
    Get Off My Lawn. Maynerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Texsahara View Post
    ‏@SenSchumer
    Our requests are eminently reasonable, shared by leaders of both parties. I'll return this letter to @SenateMajLdr with the same requests.
    I'm not a big fan of Schumer, but this memo is outstanding, and a perfect example of how screwed up politics is inside the beltway. He hit a home run, here.


    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3
    Immensely qualified - yes and no. Civilian control of the military is a bedrock American principle, and, with the single exception of George Marshall, being a career military officer has been considered a disqualification. It was written into law with some wiggle room, but to call Matiis "immensely qualified" is true only if you ignore the fact that he's disqualified - by tradition, by principle, and by law.
    Agreed. As a career military officer, the last thing you'd want is a SecDef answering to "General." Marshall is the exception. He was Chief of Staff, and not a combatant commander, and had served (successfully) as SecState before becoming SecDef. While he earned five stars as a general, he did so as a Statesman, more than as a soldier.

    "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
    - President Barack Obama

  5. #36280
    Let's go Rangers! RhodyYanksFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    lil'rhody

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Texsahara View Post
    Chuck SchumerVerified account
    ‏@SenSchumer
    Our requests are eminently reasonable, shared by leaders of both parties. I'll return this letter to @SenateMajLdr with the same requests.

    Good job by Schumer here. It's amazingly easy to prove Mitch McConnell is the slimiest of slimballs on the Hill. He doesn't even try and hide it.

  6. #36281
    Get Off My Lawn. Maynerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Gregorius Chant View Post
    What a phony.
    If I'm a phony, how would you describe someone who laughed off "But Edmond Hillary," and then expressed concern about DC being sold out of dresses? My standards haven't changed. I didn't like all the lies before the election, and I don't like them now.

    "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
    - President Barack Obama

  7. #36282
    Let's go Rangers! RhodyYanksFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    lil'rhody

    Re: Election 2016

    The guys who hosted Keepin' it 1600 on the Ringer podcast network have branched out and started their own venture more focused on action and how to get involved in politics instead of just bitching about it on a podcast. As such Keepin' it 1600 is gone and is being replaced by Pod Save America. The first episode is up now on itunes and the website of their new company is www.getcrookedmedia.com

  8. #36283

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    If I'm a phony, how would you describe someone who laughed off "But Edmond Hillary," and then expressed concern about DC being sold out of dresses? My standards haven't changed. I didn't like all the lies before the election, and I don't like them now.
    I don't care about dresses. I care about the sanctity of our institutions, which he's made clear he's going to trample on every opportunity he gets.

    As a self-knighted Morally Erect Gary Johnson Voter, you've declared only you get to decry instances of lies and poor ethics. Wonderful. Except Here we are days from Trump's inauguration where there have been any number of trespasses, and the only target of your Morally Erect ire is Hillary Clinton and anyone who voted for her.

    You have no problem with Trump or ethics or any of it. You just hate Hillary Clinton.

  9. #36284
    "The Barrel" ClownPickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by ShannonC View Post
    He's not disqualified by law. The Law is that he needs a waiver, and if he gets it, he's completely in line with the law. Disqualified by law would be congress refusing to grant the waiver and him ignoring that and serving anyway.

    Tradition? Secretary of defense has existed for all of 60 years, and has seen several former military officers serve, including Marshall who was granted a waiver immediately after active duty (as you yourself point out). Before that you had "Secretary of War" which was often staffed with prominent officers of previous wars going all the way back to the continental army.

    Principle? A civilian will be in charge of the military. His name is Donald Trump. Mattis wouldn't even need a waiver in three more years, which is to say he could be switched in later on in this very same Trump term without a waiver. Unless you're saying that Mattis should never ever serve as SecDef, then you're not actually debating principle. You're just haggling over three years.
    Well said. The notion the appointment is somehow 'illegal' is laughable.

  10. #36285
    Let's go Rangers! RhodyYanksFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    lil'rhody

    Re: Election 2016

    From the people who brought you "Extreme Vetting"

    Reince Priebus: 'There's No Reason' To Do Background Checks On Trump's Cabinet Picks

  11. #36286

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by ajra21 View Post
    pretty much.

    the president-elect is a fūckwit. the fact he is appointing a bunch of other fūckwits shouldn't surprise anyone. maybe his son-in-law is a fūckwit too. who knows? can't say his relationship would be the reason to be concerned.
    I can't argue with any of this.

  12. #36287

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by BRenninger View Post
    Some bodies getting cold feet regarding the ACA.

    Breakaway Senate Republicans Push to Delay Obamacare Repeall

    Source: Bloomberg

    A breakaway group of five moderate Senate Republicans pushed Monday to delay a bill repealing Obamacare until March -- potentially enough pressure to force the party’s leadership to comply.

    The step is the latest sign of some Republicans’ growing uneasiness about their leadership’s plan to repeal the law with no consensus on a replacement as part of an effort to deliver swiftly on one of President-elect Donald Trump’s top campaign promises.

    Senators Bob Corker of Tennessee, Rob Portman of Ohio, Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska offered an amendment Monday to the budget resolution that would extend the target date for the committees to write an Obamacare repeal bill to March 3 from Jan. 27.

    “As President-elect Trump has stated, repeal and replace should take place simultaneously, and this amendment will give the incoming administration more time to outline its priorities," Corker said in a statement. "By extending the deadline for budget reconciliation instructions until March, Congress and the incoming administration will each have additional time to get the policy right."

    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...amacare-repeal
    ***************************************************
    You can add trump to that list.
    Some Republicans get it. The ACA is a program at its core designed by CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS. It's original intent was to get freeloaders to pay into the system. The effect of removing the ACA without a replacement is to drive up costs for everyone else.

    Our laws require that hospitals treat patients who come in with an emergency regardless of whether they have means to pay for the treatment. Republicans dating back to the Nixon administration understood that this was in conflict with the ability to opt out of the system. I personally know of a number of examples of people who received treatment without means to pay. The worst case was a couple in their mid 40's without health insurance. The wife contracted cancer and took 2 years to die. She received treatment. In his grief, the husband went out and accidentally drove his motorcycle into a tree and was lifestarred to the hospital where he was treated. To this day, he is a quadriplegic. All of his hospital bills have been paid by the rest of us. He was allowed to opt out, but he still got treatment. Unless we're going to let people like him and his wife die in the street, they must participate in the cost. So far we have a system that hasn't fully made that choice.

    It is unfortunate that in this era of hyper partisan politics, we have Republicans canning their own program because some politicians care more about obstruction than they do about principle and acting in the people's interest.

  13. #36288
    Get Off My Lawn. Maynerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Gregorius Chant View Post
    As a self-knighted Morally Erect Gary Johnson Voter, you've declared only you get to decry instances of lies and poor ethics. Wonderful.
    No. By all means, rail away against the lies and poor ethics. I do. Just acknowledge that the lies and poor ethics didn't matter to you for the last six months.
    Except Here we are days from Trump's inauguration where there have been any number of trespasses, and the only target of your Morally Erect ire is Hillary Clinton and anyone who voted for her.
    Not so. I've complained about his cabinet picks, particularly Defense. I don't complain about his bizarre tweets because I can't fathom why he's bothering. I'm willing to wait until he gets into office to complain about what he does, because he isn't doing any of it now. As for ire against those who voted for Hillary.........if she had been disqualified early in the process, and a reasonable Democratic candidate had been nominated, Donald Trump would not be President-Elect. If people who were honestly concerned about ethics abandoned both parties, Donald Trump would not be President-Elect. I hold both major parties responsible for the train wreck about to happen.....the Republicans for failing to coalesce behind a reasonable and sane candidate, and the Democrats for ignoring the dishonesty of their pre-selected standard-bearer.

    "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
    - President Barack Obama

  14. #36289
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by ShannonC View Post
    He's not disqualified by law. The Law is that he needs a waiver, and if he gets it, he's completely in line with the law. Disqualified by law would be congress refusing to grant the waiver and him ignoring that and serving anyway.

    Tradition? Secretary of defense has existed for all of 60 years, and has seen several former military officers serve, including Marshall who was granted a waiver immediately after active duty (as you yourself point out). Before that you had "Secretary of War" which was often staffed with prominent officers of previous wars going all the way back to the continental army.

    Principle? A civilian will be in charge of the military. His name is Donald Trump. Mattis wouldn't even need a waiver in three more years, which is to say he could be switched in later on in this very same Trump term without a waiver. Unless you're saying that Mattis should never ever serve as SecDef, then you're not actually debating principle. You're just haggling over three years.

    No, the law doesn't say that he needs a waiver. The law is that he's disqualified. The law further enshrines the principle that civilian control of the military applies to the Secretary of Defense, not just the President. 10 U.S. Code § 113 (a):

    There is a Secretary of Defense, who is the head of the Department of Defense, appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.
    Now, if the Congress chooses to pass something separate giving Mattis a waiver, they may do so. But the law says that he's disqualified, not that he needs a waiver to serve.

    I didn't say "former military officers." I said "career military officers." For many years, there was an entire generation that had served in the military, but they weren't military men by identity. Marshall was granted a waiver, but it was generally considered to be a one-time thing, and not universally hailed.

    In other words, your entire argument is specious. Try again.
    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
    - Barry Manilow

  15. #36290

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    No. By all means, rail away against the lies and poor ethics. I do. Just acknowledge that the lies and poor ethics didn't matter to you for the last six months.Not so. I've complained about his cabinet picks, particularly Defense. I don't complain about his bizarre tweets because I can't fathom why he's bothering. I'm willing to wait until he gets into office to complain about what he does, because he isn't doing any of it now. As for ire against those who voted for Hillary.........if she had been disqualified early in the process, and a reasonable Democratic candidate had been nominated, Donald Trump would not be President-Elect. If people who were honestly concerned about ethics abandoned both parties, Donald Trump would not be President-Elect. I hold both major parties responsible for the train wreck about to happen.....the Republicans for failing to coalesce behind a reasonable and sane candidate, and the Democrats for ignoring the dishonesty of their pre-selected standard-bearer.
    Completely phony and transparent.

  16. #36291

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by RhodyYanksFan View Post
    From the people who brought you "Extreme Vetting"

    Reince Preibus: "There's no reason to do background checks on Trump's cabinet picks."

    Since Preibus says there's no need to do background checks, I recommend that on his last day in office, President Obama appoint Merrick Gatland to the SCOTUS. The Senate has had 9 months to review his qualifications, more time than any Senate has ever needed. By their own words, they think that such reviews are unnecessary.

    Such an act would create a Constitutional crisis which ironically go the the SCOTUS. But let them choke on their own words.

  17. #36292

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    No. By all means, rail away against the lies and poor ethics. I do. Just acknowledge that the lies and poor ethics didn't matter to you for the last six months..
    This is just more of your good old false equivalency. Trump's lies and poor ethics are the same as Clinton's! You continue to pretend that your interpretation of her "transgressions" is the only valid one and accepted by all parties and that is simply not true.

  18. #36293

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Gregorius Chant View Post
    Completely phony and transparent.
    Nope. You're in denial about Hillary.

  19. #36294

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Texsahara View Post
    This is just more of your good old false equivalency. Trump's lies and poor ethics are the same as Clinton's! You continue to pretend that your interpretation of her "transgressions" is the only valid one and accepted by all parties and that is simply not true.
    Remember the good old days when he insisted he wasn't arguing they're the same candidate?

  20. #36295
    Let's go Rangers! RhodyYanksFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    lil'rhody

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Marsh View Post
    Since Preibus says there's no need to do background checks, I recommend that on his last day in office, President Obama appoint Merrick Gatland to the SCOTUS. The Senate has had 9 months to review his qualifications, more time than any Senate has ever needed. By their own words, they think that such reviews are unnecessary.

    Such an act would create a Constitutional crisis which ironically go the the SCOTUS. But let them choke on their own words.
    That would be a fitting end to this election cycle, but not to Obama's presidency. He should go out as dignified as he spent his entire 8 year run.

    On that note, I can't wait to see his farewell address tonight. Savor it because it'll be the last address by someone speaking as a president should we'll see for the next 2 to 4 years.

  21. #36296

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    No, the law doesn't say that he needs a waiver. The law is that he's disqualified. The law further enshrines the principle that civilian control of the military applies to the Secretary of Defense, not just the President. 10 U.S. Code § 113 (a):



    Now, if the Congress chooses to pass something separate giving Mattis a waiver, they may do so. But the law says that he's disqualified, not that he needs a waiver to serve.

    I didn't say "former military officers." I said "career military officers." For many years, there was an entire generation that had served in the military, but they weren't military men by identity. Marshall was granted a waiver, but it was generally considered to be a one-time thing, and not universally hailed.

    In other words, your entire argument is specious. Try again.
    I agree but I my question is why. Why pick the one guy that would need a waiver? I'm sure there are many excellent choices that wouldn't. I see it as just another demonstration of this administration saying that rules are for suckers and they're going to do whatever they want.

    The Congressional Research Service has released a report designed to aid Congress on how to proceed with the Mattis nomination. It provides a very good synopsis on civilian control of the the military going back long before the 1947 bill that required it and continues up to today.

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R44725.pdf

    “Historically, the restriction relating to the prior military service of the Secretary of Defense appears to be a product of congressional concern about preserving the principle of civilian control of the military, a fundamental tenet underpinning the design and operation of the American republic since its inception in 1776, if not before”

  22. #36297
    Let's go Rangers! RhodyYanksFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    lil'rhody

    Re: Election 2016

    Jeff Sessions at this confirmation hearing sounds like a slave owner who'd say "well, I fed and housed them and gave them a good life! I'm not racist"

  23. #36298
    "The Barrel" ClownPickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    No, the law doesn't say that he needs a waiver. The law is that he's disqualified. The law further enshrines the principle that civilian control of the military applies to the Secretary of Defense, not just the President. 10 U.S. Code § 113 (a):

    Now, if the Congress chooses to pass something separate giving Mattis a waiver, they may do so. But the law says that he's disqualified, not that he needs a waiver to serve.

    I didn't say "former military officers." I said "career military officers." For many years, there was an entire generation that had served in the military, but they weren't military men by identity. Marshall was granted a waiver, but it was generally considered to be a one-time thing, and not universally hailed.

    In other words, your entire argument is specious. Try again.
    That still doesn't make the selection 'illegal.' The appointment isn't confirmed. Trump can't go forward with the selection of Mattis without the approval of the Senate. So yes, there are checks and balances. Stop with the unfounded hysteria. There's plenty of actual things to be hysterical about.

  24. #36299

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    No. By all means, rail away against the lies and poor ethics. I do. Just acknowledge that the lies and poor ethics didn't matter to you for the last six months.Not so. I've complained about his cabinet picks, particularly Defense. I don't complain about his bizarre tweets because I can't fathom why he's bothering. I'm willing to wait until he gets into office to complain about what he does, because he isn't doing any of it now. As for ire against those who voted for Hillary.........if she had been disqualified early in the process, and a reasonable Democratic candidate had been nominated, Donald Trump would not be President-Elect. If people who were honestly concerned about ethics abandoned both parties, Donald Trump would not be President-Elect. I hold both major parties responsible for the train wreck about to happen.....the Republicans for failing to coalesce behind a reasonable and sane candidate, and the Democrats for ignoring the dishonesty of their pre-selected standard-bearer.
    I don't know Mr. Maynerd. Sounding more and more like you still have a crush on HRC.
    That being said, where was your outrage when the Bush43 clown corps lied about Pat Tillman's death? Lied to his parents, wife and brother who was in the military at the time. The Bush Clown Corp lied incessantly at what a gallant hero Tillman displayed. That he single handedly took out an Afghan rogue band of terrorists. That he (Tillman) acted above and beyond to defeat the rogue terrorists. Not only the Bush43 Corps lied, the supreme commander and generals all lied as well. Then tried to make amends and award Tillman the Silver Star. What BS!!!! Tillman was killed by his own fellow soldiers. Fratricide! Are you familiar with the military term?
    Where was your moral outrage then?

  25. #36300

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by RhodyYanksFan View Post
    That would be a fitting end to this election cycle, but not to Obama's presidency. He should go out as dignified as he spent his entire 8 year run.

    On that note, I can't wait to see his farewell address tonight. Savor it because it'll be the last address by someone speaking as a president should we'll see for the next 2 to 4 years.
    I wouldn't see anything undignified about such an action. What was "undignified" - to say the least - was the refusal of the Senate to conduct its Constitutionally required duties, basically giving the middle finger to the citizenry who are paying their salaries to do the people's business.

    There's actually quite a strong legal argument for the president to exercise his mandated authority to make an appointment in the face of the Senate abdicating its responsibility and as a result leaving a vacancy on the Supreme Court for the second year in a row.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts