Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It’s hard to take this board seriously. Two Trump appointees are criticized for not simply being loyal subjects when their job is to rule on matters of law. And this is somehow evidence that our country is too woke and descending into liberal madness.
or something like that. It’s hard to follow the logic here, so forgive me if I’m mischaracterizing.
NO MALARKEY
There seems to be a focus in the number of executive orders in this thread. But if you look at the substance you’ll see that at least half are completely non-partisan and non-controversial. Examples:
- Requiring mask wearing on Federal property during the pandemic
- coordinating a government-wide Covid-19 response
- banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation
- mandating ethics pledge for government appointees
- promoting Covid-19 safety in domestic and international travel
- expanding access to Covid-19 treatments
- promoting data-driven response to Covid-19
- invoked the Defense Production Act to ramp up supplies for the pandemic response
- establishing the Covid-19 Health Equity Task Force
- supporting the reopening and continuing operation of schools
- establishing a Covid-19 pandemic testing board
- expanding food assistance programs
- assisting veterans with debt
- facilitate the distribution of federal aid amid the pandemic
- facilitating delivery of stimulus payments to expand and improve delivery of direct stimulus payments, including the creation of online tools for recipients to claim their checks
- order directed all government departments and agencies to “promptly identify actions they can take within existing authorities to address the current economic crisis resulting from the pandemic
- reinstating Covid-19 travel restrictions
- promoting ‘Buy American’ agenda
- order re-establishing presidential council on science and technology
Maybe EOs aren’t the best way to do some of these things and I’m sure you can nitpick or disagree with a few of them above — and others not listed. But my quick read is that many of them are specific to COVID (presumably temporary) and not some kind of partisan thing. So just going by the numbers is a bit misleading.
NO MALARKEY
[quote quote=4140]if it were a true insurrection and an attempt at a coup, would the infiltrators have been content to take selfies on the dais, in Pelosi’s office, etc.?[/quote]
I think you’re downplaying what happened. Several people died, including a cop who was bludgeoned to death. Many of these folks framed it as their last chance to “stop the steal” of a lawful democratic election. A mob forced their way into the building. They ransacked offices. They constructed a noose outside the Capitol building. Crowds were chanting for Mike Pence to be hanged and for Pelosi to be killed, among other outrageous and seditious things.
They were literally trying to force their way into the chamber at the moment the votes of a national election were being counted. Many hoped their show of force would somehow persuade Republicans or Pence to reject votes (not that he could). Who knows what they would have done if they had somehow caught up with Pence or Pelosi and others. I’m glad we didn’t have to find out.
Here’s some of the violence:
NO MALARKEY
Change of topic? I responded to the topic I thought you raised (perhaps I misunderstood; my bad) and then finished the comment by talking about Trump / Georgia — the original topic.
NO MALARKEY
@cardcrimson — I mentioned in a previous post last week that I didn’t really follow the Russia thing that closely and never commented one way or another on it. I will note, though, that it was initiated by Republicans, investigated by Republicans, and prosecuted by Republicans.
If you’re talking about the quid pro quo thing (Ukraine) — I am still of the opinion it was an abuse of power. And the fact that Trump was not held accountable is probably one reason why he felt emboldened to call the Secretary of State of Georgia (and who knows who else) to ask them to change the votes — which itself may be illegal and undemocratic at the very least.
NO MALARKEY
My first post has two links. Neither have videos.
I assume you mean the video at the top of a Fox News article I linked in the second post. Those usually have long ads to start and are unrelated to the articles most of the time. I never click on them. I had no idea it was even there, if that’s what you’re talking about. I went to that link to read the article, not sit through an ad and watch a video.
Anyway, I watched the whole video (the Brian Kemp video, I assume you mean) and am still not clear on your point.
You might try just making your point rather than leading me on some cryptic wild goose chase. But I tried.
NO MALARKEY
Edit: this was meant to be a reply to rjnwmill.
I’m not clear on what the AJC has to do with this besides simply reporting the results of the audit. Did they misreport it? If you prefer a different source, here’s a Fox News article about it.
If they want to examine the ballots in Fulton County, be my guest. I’m sure if they find nothing substantial the goalposts will move again, though.
As for the rest of your post, it has nothing to do with the topic (a recurring thing). But I’ll answer anyway. There is little accountability when police misuse their power. I don’t post all the stories and videos I see, but there are endless examples. I’m not even sure it’s a controversial topic. I think even conservatives often agree that more accountability is needed. As for Seattle, I said months ago all that crap was insane. I don’t support that either. Neither does Biden, from what I recall of his comments in one of the debates.
NO MALARKEY
[quote] Hunter Biden is accused of selling access and influence. Why is he relevant? Because he is accused of selling access to, and the influence of… Joe Biden. Not just selling access and influence, but selling access and influence to China, and committing actual interference with the Ukrainian justice system. There is evidence for this, and it was suppressed by the media and Big Tech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Wisconsin_gubernatorial_election[/quote]
Yeah, I’m familiar with the issue. But this is a thread about Trump doing controversial things as a lame duck President. If anyone wants to talk about Hunter Biden be my guest. But the response — at least the part about Hunter Biden — had nothing to do with the topic at hand. It’s a huge stretch even to call it a what-aboutism. It’s just completely off topic and an obvious attempt to deflect, change topics, etc.
NO MALARKEY
You have me confused with someone else. I don’t recall making a single post or comment on the Mueller investigation, until now, much less Russia, Russia, Russia, as you put it.
I’m not sure what Hunter Biden has to do with this, but it is not surprising that his name gets dropped in a response to a thread about Trump. Can’t let an opportunity go by without mentioning Hunter Biden.
I am no fan of Clinton. If that’s the low bar you hold Trump to then it’s not much of a defense. And I don’t remember much about the PR pardons, but Wikipedia says they weren’t pardoned. Their sentences were commuted after 19 years on the condition they renounce violence. And they were not convicted of harming anyone. So it doesn’t really sound comparable. Even many in the military were horrified by these Blackwater guys. Let’s be honest – Trump pardoned these guys because Erik Prince and Betsy Devos are big donors. So much for draining the swamp.
And the “legal theater” in 2000 wasn’t remotely comparable. Gore asked for a recount in an extremely close vote in one single county. And eventually conceded without any caveats.
-
This reply was modified 5 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 5 years, 4 months ago by
NO MALARKEY
[quote quote=4005]He certainly hasn’t been too controversial…but there’s still time.[/quote]
You mean besides pardoning every single Mueller defendant except the two that cooperated?
Or pardoning four men from Blackwater who massacred 14 people and wounded 17 others?
Or siding with Putin again in “Helsinki part II” where he contradicted Pompeo and the rest of our intelligence community regarding who was at fault for the worst security breach ever?
Or his months long campaign to undermine the election and confidence in our democratic institutions?
I’m curious what more he would have to do before you decided he was being controversial.
NO MALARKEY
Grounded in reality? Analogies are fairly common rhetorical devices to illustrate a point.
You don’t like that I call them conspiracy theories? Fine. I’ll call them baseless claims that don’t stand up to scrutiny. But yeah, if you are basing your fraud proof on which law firm Biden hired then I would suggest you don’t have much of a case — and that is conspiratorial whether you like the term or not.
NO MALARKEY
