ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

Sure. But his views are in line with a lot of Democrats. If you are a Democrat, how do you dismiss the fact that a significant portion of Democrats aren't one bit concerned about Schumer and his comments?

I'm sure libs say the same thing about Trump and his.

#politics.
 
Libs say the same thing about what? You lost me there.

Sure. But his views are in line with a lot of Republicans. If you are a Republican, how do you dismiss the fact that a significant portion of Republicans aren't one bit concerned about Trump and his comments?

That's what I meant. If you just replace the words, you're saying something libs can also say about Republicans and Trump.
 
Speaking of attacking norms and institutions, here's the highest ranked Democrat in the US threatening Supreme Court Justices. It was so bad that the Chief Justice had to call him out with a public statement.

Why do Democrats get a pass when doing this?

Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts on Wednesday issued a highly unusual and forceful rebuke to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., calling his seemingly threatening remarks directed at Associated Justices Neal Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh "irresponsible" and dangerous."

"This morning, Senator Schumer spoke at a rally in front of the Supreme Court while a case was being argued inside," Roberts said in an extraordinary written statement, obtained by Fox News. "Senator Schumer referred to two Members of the Court by name and said he wanted to tell them that 'You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.'"

Roberts continued: "Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter."

READ ROBERTS' STATEMENT

Hours earlier, at a pro-choice rally hosted by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Schumer ominously singled out President Trump's two Supreme Court picks.

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!" Schumer warned. "You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ch...-calling-comments-kavanaugh-gorsuch-dangerous
Anyone defending Schumer's comments should be ashamed of themselves. What he said was reprehensible and he should issue an unconditional apology. Good on Roberts for calling him out.
 
Libs have been saying this about Trump. Since before he was elected.

Yep. So libs defending something crazy will always point to Trump and go "well look guys, you're doing it also." Which is probably even more shitty.

It's the whole "well what about him, he's worse" argument when defending something you did wrong. Trump does it constantly with Obama/Hillary and libs do it with Trump. Sucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heelmanwilm
Anyone defending Schumer's comments should be ashamed of themselves. What he said was reprehensible and he should issue an unconditional apology. Good on Roberts for calling him out.

Ok, but shouldn't the leaders of the Democrat party be demanding an apology from Schumer? He made comments threatening judges. Is there anyone in the Democrat party who has called him out?
 
Ok, but shouldn't the leaders of the Democrat party be demanding an apology from Schumer? He made comments threatening judges. Is there anyone in the Democrat party who has called him out?

my guess is they’ll use the example set by trump supporters when he mocked a disabled person. Deny it, lie about it, mischaracterize it, rationalize it, blame the media...
 
my guess is they’ll use the example set by trump supporters when he mocked a disabled person. Deny it, lie about it, mischaracterize it, rationalize it, blame the media...

I think you meant like the example set by Clinton supporters when they blamed the woman for being raped by Clinton.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heelmanwilm

Putting aside this came from DJT Jr...I agree with the idea here that this isn't really something that should be debatable. The issue, as someone explained in the comments, is making state law take precedence over federal law.

I argue that stealing of IDs, especially by illegals, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent as a federal law. If anyone thinks it shouldn't - I'd love to hear the other side cuz I can't come up with one.
 
Are you of the belief that he has NOT attacked our democratic norms and institutions?

No, I am completely of the belief that he has attacked many democratic norms and institutions and I approve of almost all of them.

Which line(s) has he crossed that would cause you to vote for an avowed socialist?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
You must be one of those evil 1% people.

Not really, certainly not near 7 figures which is what I consider 1%. Wife and I both work full time (and work our asses off) at pretty good jobs and get nabbed for over 1/4 of our pay. Hell I'm on here during conference calls where I'm not actively needed just to break up my day.

If Bernie wants free healthcare and education, does my rate go to 30%, 33%, 35%? Nah, I'm good with Trump grabbing some puss instead.
 

Putting aside this came from DJT Jr...I agree with the idea here that this isn't really something that should be debatable. The issue, as someone explained in the comments, is making state law take precedence over federal law.

I argue that stealing of IDs, especially by illegals, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent as a federal law. If anyone thinks it shouldn't - I'd love to hear the other side cuz I can't come up with one.
I read an article about this yesterday, but I didn't read the decision or the law in question. What I was wondering is how this became an immigration case. Unless the law specifically targeted illegals, then this was just an identity fraud issue.
 
If I paid an effective tax rate of 21% and that covered my healthcare, then I would be a very happy camper.

That's just bottom line on my tax return. I was surprised that yearly taxes weren't all that different than the US when I moved here. The biggest pain is HST (sales tax). 13 frigging %. Let's just say there have been a few items I did not declare a customs over the years. :)
 
I read an article about this yesterday, but I didn't read the decision or the law in question. What I was wondering is how this became an immigration case. Unless the law specifically targeted illegals, then this was just an identity fraud issue.

Yeah - I see why it would be a separate immigration case because the theft of an ID to get a job "legally" is different than the theft of an ID to open up loans in terms of scope/reach.

Both, in my opinion, are deplorable. I've heard horror stories of people having their identity stolen and it impacting the rest of their life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UNC71-00
Yeah - I see why it would be a separate immigration case because the theft of an ID to get a job "legally" is different than the theft of an ID to open up loans in terms of scope/reach.

Both, in my opinion, are deplorable. I've heard horror stories of people having their identity stolen and it impacting the rest of their life.
Was the law specific to a job or just stealing identity in general? It doesn't really matter if it was just for a job though. Regular citizens can steal for that too. I realize that illegals are more likely to do it, but they aren't the only ones. It seems to me that the defense came up with this immigration angle because that was their only chance of winning.
 
Ya, if we can get a list of norms and institutions that have been destroyed, maybe we can come to an agreement on which ones we care about and which ones we don't.

WTF is this, a game of "let me answer your question with another question"?
 
Yeah - I see why it would be a separate immigration case because the theft of an ID to get a job "legally" is different than the theft of an ID to open up loans in terms of scope/reach.

Both, in my opinion, are deplorable. I've heard horror stories of people having their identity stolen and it impacting the rest of their life.

this issue is the constitutionality of a state enforcing a federal law. Since it involves immigration of course it becomes politicized but no ones claiming it shouldn’t be illegal to steal id’s like dip shit Donald seems to be implying.
 
Ya, if we can get a list of norms and institutions that have been destroyed, maybe we can come to an agreement on which ones we care about and which ones we don't.
Not sure it's worth anyone's time, because everyone already knows what the responses to that list will be. It will be either "it doesn't matter to me" or a "but president _______ did it first." Just a waste of time.
 
Let’s recap, shall we? You said this:


I can’t speak for other moderates, but I decided long ago that I would vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it was. That’s how strongly I feel about the incumbent’s attacks on our democratic norms and institutions.

to which I responded:


I'm probably going to regret asking this, but which attacked norms and institutions are you referring to?

and now you keep asking me what I approve of.

Are you going to tell us what norms and institutions that are being attacked are causing you to be ok to vote for any Democrat?
 
Not sure it's worth anyone's time, because everyone already knows what the responses to that list will be. It will be either "it doesn't matter to me" or a "but president _______ did it first." Just a waste of time.

Ya, that's true. We already have a method to determine whether we think what has happened over the last 3.5 years is good or bad. It's called voting.
 
Ya, if we can get a list of norms and institutions that have been destroyed, maybe we can come to an agreement on which ones we care about and which ones we don't.
My list is rather long (and I said attacked, not destroyed). I suspect @UNC71-00's list is rather short, or doesn't exist at all. Which is why...
and now you keep asking me what I approve of.
I'm actually asking what he disapproves of, but you get the drift.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT