 
     |
| The 2nd Impeachment of (former) President Donald J. Trump (Page 7/9) |
|
randye
|
FEB 14, 12:48 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
I (mostly) agree. But I’d also argue that not only are leftists emotional and contradictory, the right-wing is worse.
|
|
Of course you would.
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
How do you reconcile small government with a large military?
How do you reconcile small government with drug laws?
How do you reconcile small government with oil and farming subsidies?
How do you reconcile small government with abortion laws?
|
|
You obviously missed the numerous posts where I have said to never allow a Leftist to frame an argument.
I'm not making any exceptions for you.
I said precisely what I intended to say, I made the point I intended to make, and no more is necessary.
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
Leftists have some terrible ideas, but I definitely find them more ideologically consistent than Republicans....
|
|
Of course you do.
.............................................
By the way, in your blind zeal to be an argumentative contrarian YOU FAILED to note that I wasn't talking about Democrats, Republicans or any other political party.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-14-2021).]
|
|
|
|
theBDub
|
FEB 14, 06:28 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
Of course you do.
.............................................
By the way, in your blind zeal to be an argumentative contrarian YOU FAILED to note that I wasn't talking about Democrats, Republicans or any other political party.
|
|
I was just making conversation. I agree with you with regards to leftists having more emotional-based arguments.
|
|
|
cliffw
|
FEB 14, 09:27 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
It's from WaPo, and I will now provide the Internet page link as a "pro forma" or matter of record.
|
|
My Mom warned me about hanging out with people of bad character. You should be careful. We might draw up articles of impeachment against you. True, it might be partisan, but so would be your "trial",  .
Well, bi-partisan. I would not vote to impeach you.
@ the forum : I watched the whole debacle yesterday. Actually, I watched the whole debacle.
My favorite moment ? It was when that Asian Jauquin Castro, an impeachment House Manager, while introducing "proof" that your President incited a riot, said "the whole world is laughing at us".
The Dumbs spent 16 hours trying to prove their case. The Repulsives spent 3+ hours to demolish their case. The Dumbs are still claiming victory.
|
|
|
|
Raydar
|
FEB 14, 11:00 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by blackrams:
...
I honestly don't think DJT can win another election (but, that's just my opinion) unless, the Dems put up another HRC as their candidate. Or one similar to her.
CNN has never been a Pro-Trump organization. But, they finally came around to seeing the true Dem agenda and admitting it.
|
|
I think that the Republicans will try to ignore Trump, next time around. In the event that he is part of the primaries, I don't think he will win the nomination. (If this whole outlook seems cynical on my part, so be it. I think he'll probably get "Bernied", similar to the Dems, with Hillary.)
With that being the case, he will probably run as an independent. This will cause a split vote, giving the Dems the win (Google "Ross Perot".)
Of course, Ralph Nader could run, again (assuming he is still alive, by then) and split the Dem vote.
|
|
|
|
eti engineer
|
FEB 14, 11:07 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by williegoat:
I would like to go on record as saying that the very idea is outrageous, a total sham, a circus and an affront to the sanctity of both the legislative and executive branches. However, in a time where the bizarre has become banal, I can barely eke out a convincing yawn. |
|
Agreed, 10000000%
|
|
|
|
blackrams
|
FEB 14, 11:14 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Raydar:
I think that the Republicans will try to ignore Trump, next time around. In the event that he is part of the primaries, I don't think he will win the nomination. (If this whole outlook seems cynical on my part, so be it. I think he'll probably get "Bernied", similar to the Dems, with Hillary.)
With that being the case, he will probably run as an independent. This will cause a split vote, giving the Dems the win (Google "Ross Perot".)
Of course, Ralph Nader could run, again (assuming he is still alive, by then) and split the Dem vote. |
|
Steve,
I agree with much of what you just posted. Although, I can see DJT having a lot of influence within the Republican Party. I believe he already knows that a third party run would be fruitless.
Rams[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 02-14-2021).]
|
|
|
|
sourmash
|
FEB 14, 11:53 AM
|
|
|
But a truly representative third party is needed to replace the nonconservative Republican Party.
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
FEB 14, 08:01 PM
|
|
Trump will be more effective behind the scene, helping raise money, vet candidates and shape policy.
I doubt he runs again, but he will be a driving force behind the rights efforts.
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
FEB 15, 05:03 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
I (mostly) agree. But I’d also argue that not only are leftists emotional and contradictory, the right-wing is worse.
How do you reconcile small government with a large military?
How do you reconcile small government with drug laws?
How do you reconcile small government with oil and farming subsidies?
How do you reconcile small government with abortion laws?
Leftists have some terrible ideas, but I definitely find them more ideologically consistent than Republicans, who seem to say things that their Representitives never actually believe in or vote for. |
|
My personal opinion... Democrats have changed so dramatically, that I really don't know what they actually represent. ~20 years ago, I was a Democrat. And they stood for basically someone who was fiscally conservative (as were most Republicans), but with an emphasis on compassion (e.g., working class people, and support for labor unions). Right now... I personally feel they are the party of crazy. Full-on Socialism, absurd spending... and other ideas that I can't even begin to list out because they're so many, and so ludacris.
But on your list above:
"How do you reconcile small government with a large military?"
I've always believed a strong and big military is important for a show of power... that is, as a deterrent. What I've learned over the past several years is that the military in general has become somewhat of an albatross. I go back to Eisenhower's speech on the Military Industrial Complex. You have pretty much every GS-15 civilian and O6 and higher retiring from Government and then coming back as a contractor to sell services and lobby their friend network. The military LEADERSHIP wants an even bigger military so that they can grow the number of Generals and Admirals, and so that others can get promoted, and continue the cycle. It's self-fulfilling. At the same time, we continue to do a lot of dumb **** ... producing modern-day Battleships (air craft carriers). Don't get me wrong, I love them... but why do we need 13? Air Craft carriers. I understand how it works... they are floating military basis. But our newest submarine is already a 20 year old design (Virginia class). China has a larger navy than we do, and they're focusing on speed and agility... while we're focusing on the ability to be out for 6+ months at sea. China is also working on hypersonic missiles and other technology that can have a greater impact. In the mean time, we're still producing M1 Abrams tanks... for what purpose? It takes in excess of 3 million dollars to build an M1 and deliver it somewhere. A $70k Hellfire air to surface missile from an F15 will more easily take out whatever it is that tank is looking to destroy, at a significantly lower cost. Every president, from Bush Jr to Trump, has voted to save that M1 tank plant for some reason. So... military needs to really rethink their strategy, they need to modernize, and they need to eliminate this massive lobbying / incestuous contract structure they have. And don't even get me started on MMT...
"How do you reconcile small government with drug laws?"
My brother died of a drug overdose, so I inherently have a dislike of drugs (never used them). The libertarian side of me agrees that there's no point in restricting the sale of marijuana. I don't presume for a second to admit that my feelings on drugs are rational, but I have no intention of ever voting for unrestricted drug use. I recognize I'm the one here in the wrong.
"How do you reconcile small government with oil and farming subsidies?"
I don't agree with farming subsidies... except for the situation when we were leveraging tariffs against China. At that point it made sense to do so in order to keep the pressure on China, and not hurt our own industry. That said, I don't like corn subsidy, or any other farming subsidies other than tax breaks. I'll admit though, I'm not at all familiar with the oil subsidies. Can you elaborate? I'm not aware of them?
"How do you reconcile small government with abortion laws?"
The libertarian aspect would say "hands off my body." But the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" comes into play, and because I believe life begins at the heartbeat... I personally believe at that point that it's no longer "just" the pregnant woman's body. There's plenty of time for a woman to get an abortion before the heartbeat (which is roughly 6-8 weeks).
|
|
|
|
cvxjet
|
FEB 15, 06:23 PM
|
|
The republican party is now dead....LONG LIVE THE TRUMP!!!!! PARTY...(Noone is ever allowed to question trump- he always perfect! March with him or die!)
No guts whatsoever........
|
|
|
|