Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You’ve argued Trump’s obstruction (failed, but never mind that) precluded us from learning...

It prevented us from knowing what actually happened.

invalidly acquired his office.

I did not. You're the only one having this stupid discussion.

He can only invalidly acquire the office thru hacking or other manipulation of voting machines to change vote counts.

Now that you've dragged me into this asinine topic: no. This sentence is stupid.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

And about to do it again, big time by voting for Harris, Big Gay Pete, whomever, instead of Biden, who would win.

I agree with you completely. Joe Biden is a white man. He makes white people comfortable. He's also leading when it comes to the black vote, apparently. He's crushing Trump in every fucking poll. Trump needs to be absolutely crushed. And the reality is that the more people pulling the lever up and down the ticket Dem because they see a white man who isn't a complete piece of shit, the more likely Dems retake the Senate. And for God's sake, retaking the Senate is a must. Going through another four years of McConnell rejecting every single piece of legislation and declining to affirm Democratic judges would be a fucking disaster.

I feel like Warren, Harris, Pete, Booker would all be great. But this is not about anyone's fucking feelings. This election needs to be over-fucking-whelming.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The Left seems to think because it so detests him, he has no authority to be President. The Right did the same thing for eight years in regard to Obama.

I am trying my best to ignore you because 80% of what you say is stupid. And I'm not putting energy into the rest of your brain-dead post, but this is so overwhelmingly ridiculous that I cannot help myself.

What you said above is complete and total fucking bullshit. You should know this. I think you do. And I'm not going to explain it to you. Again. But every time you say it, someone should tell you that you are full of shit. So, you're full of shit.

You're welcome.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

To beat Trump, a Democrat is going to need to excite voters to turn them out. Biden excites nobody.

This is absolutely wrong. There is no one out there who needs to be excited to vote in the next election. If you're not excited to vote against Trump at this point, you're not getting off your ass to vote for any of these other people.

White people are the fucking key. White people are fucking this country. White people want someone "safe" to vote for. And I'm talking about the ones in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Florida.

Excited? Jesus Christ. How can anyone be more motivated to vote in an election? If my wife were running, I'd vote for Joe Biden.

This "generate excitement" stuff is garbage. Bernie's ceiling is low. He's going to excite the same number of people as last time. Kamala is a black woman. Her ceiling is capped. Pete is gay. His ceiling is capped. Etc.

I hate that it is this way. But that is the way it is.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

It is a crime to obstruct justice. Having actively obstructed the investigation, none of us know what might have been revealed without the obstruction.

Why are you arguing with him on his terms? It doesn't have to be a crime to be a high crime and misdemeanor. Welcoming foreign help from our enemy to win an election and using hacked (read: stolen) information qualifies. And that's before the obstruction.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Second, Trump’s obstruction failed because none of his subordinates were dumb enough to follow his orders. It was all attempted obstruction.

1. You are wrong.
2. Attempted obstruction is obstruction, per the statute, you shit weasel.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

How is working with a foreign Gov different than getting Israel support or support from any other country? I'm sure past presidents have encouraged Israel to contact American Jews to campaign?

Are you asking a serious question or being Hank? Because I honestly can't tell if this is serious.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

"Former Vice President Joe Biden widened his lead in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary to 19 points over second-placed Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), according to the latest Quinnipiac poll released Monday."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...MAxTwKyeuc-DE8

If you need someone to excite, make that person Biden's running mate.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

It prevented us from knowing what actually happened.

That doesn't speak to the issue.

I did not. You're the only one having this stupid discussion.

Is Trump a duly elected President with authority to administer his office? Answer that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

1. You are wrong.
2. Attempted obstruction is obstruction, per the statute, you shit weasel.

TM

Shmuck, I was addressing whether his obstruction succeeded. That's what Adder and I were arguing about. If you want to have a discussion about whether attempted obstruction is obstruction under the statute, that's a different discussion.

Think, breathe, then write.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I am trying my best to ignore you because 80% of what you say is stupid. And I'm not putting energy into the rest of your brain-dead post, but this is so overwhelmingly ridiculous that I cannot help myself.

What you said above is complete and total fucking bullshit. You should know this. I think you do. And I'm not going to explain it to you. Again. But every time you say it, someone should tell you that you are full of shit. So, you're full of shit.

You're welcome.

TM

Trump is President, elected lawfully (yes, he is). People who dislike him are and have been asserting his presidency is somehow illegitimate.

Obama was President, elected lawfully. Clinton was elected lawfully. People who disliked them asserted throughout their Presidencies that they were somehow illegitimate.

These are 1:1. In each case, the authority of each President was identical. They were duly elected and had the power to administer their offices. I used authority for a reason. They held identical authority under law. And the people who claimed that they did not hold that authority were never able to make the case for why they took that position.

I was citing a fallacy among the right and the left that appears to have taken hold since Clinton -- that if you don't like the winner, the winner is somehow invalid. That's bizarre thinking. If you asked Obama or Clinton haters why they took that position (and they did), they could provide no credible answer. If you ask Trump haters why they take that position, they can provide no credible answer.

I cited Bush II as an exception because there is a solid argument his Presidency was illegitimate.

I don't include you in the crowd of people who think Trump is somehow illegitimate. I assume you think he is legitimately elected and needs to be removed. I wasn't so sure about Adder.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So did Hil, under normal rules. How is Warren's act with bizarro debate rules?

Hillary tried to look cool and above Trump. Backfired miserably. She also couldn't challenge Trump on populist positions because her corporate owners would've lost their minds.

Warren can tell Orangehead she's a true populist, then rifle through his tax plan and failure to create manufacturing jobs and expose how he isn't. Then she can put a bullet between his eyes by saying she's planning to give a $1.6 trillion tax cut to kids with loans, who'll actually spend it, rather than give it to plutocrats.

(In fairness, in many regards, the Trump tax cuts did assist the middle class. The expansion of standard deduction helped considerably. But Trump isn't fast enough to summon those facts on the dais.)

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Shmuck, I was addressing whether his obstruction succeeded. That's what Adder and I were arguing about. If you want to have a discussion about whether attempted obstruction is obstruction under the statute, that's a different discussion.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Trump is President, elected lawfully (yes, he is). People who dislike him are and have been asserting his presidency is somehow illegitimate.

I find it amazing that you think you're having different discussions.

No one is saying Trump isn't the legitimately-elected President. Absolutely no one. This is only happening in your head.

What people are saying is that he accepted help from our enemy and then obstructed justice to cover that up.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

How is working with a foreign Gov different than getting Israel support or support from any other country? I'm sure past presidents have encouraged Israel to contact American Jews to campaign?

I don't know. The fed code is a Chinese take out menu as thick as a doorstop. If you want to find a way to assert someone committed a crime, there's a bunch of letters on paper somewhere in it for you.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I find it amazing that you think you're having different discussions.

No one is saying Trump isn't the legitimately-elected President. Absolutely no one. This is only happening in your head.

What people are saying is that he accepted help from our enemy and then obstructed justice to cover that up.

TM

I'm not sure Adder agrees. He suggested that but for obstruction, we might have learned information that rendered Trump illegitimate. He can correct this if he likes.

Here was the exchange:

Me: It's not a crime to bullshit voters.

Adder: It is a crime to obstruct justice. Having actively obstructed the investigation, none of us know what might have been revealed without the obstruction.

Am I reading too cynically in thinking he's suggesting there was some act taken by Trump beyond welcoming the Russians' bullshitting voters (which is all the Russian disinformation campaign really did)? Maybe. Or maybe not. And what would that "other act" be? In the context of a discussion about how Trump and the Russians worked to win the election, there seem to be only two ways this could have been done: (1) Disinformation; and, (2) Actual vote changing. The latter didn't happen, but Adder seemed to be suggesting (he walked it back later) that obstruction may have rendered us unable to learn of the latter... which is loony.