Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Liz

Dem Committees Win New Powers To Investigate Trump

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Noclevermoniker

I’m laughing hard at you so worried about liberhuls, but at the same time seem to admit that what Trump admin is doing with WHOLESALE denial of congressional sabpoenas is wrong.

 

When I take a position it because I think IT IS A REASONABLE, FAIR POSITION, and nothing about right wing or left wing or anyone else’s hypocracy or virtue can change that. IT ISN’T PERSONAL.

 

Bottom line on this thread - what Democrats are doing to streamline adjudication of subpoenas is A PROPER change. Both for Democrats as well as Republicans who will be able to enforce subpoenas better going forward.

:biglaugh: for you, hypocrite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo

What’s objectionable is that democrats expect republicans to follow rules that democrats dont and won’t. So when they grant themselves new powers they don’t have any legitimacy.

 

That’s the problem.

 

What are you talking about? What rules did Democrats not follow?

 

Republicans were free to change sabpoena adjudication process just as Democrats did now.

 

 

And don't even get me started on Republicans having double standards and using arguments of convinience - the list is never ending...but to anyone who wasn't born yesterday that's just a par for the political course, so not even a point relitigate it each and every time. The policy or rule cahnge is either good or it isn't, THE END.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

And don't even get me started on Republicans having double standards and using arguments of convinience - the list is never ending...

Go ahead. Get started. Let’s hear it, since you’re in a mood to compare records.

Edited by zurg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup

What are you talking about? What rules did Democrats not follow?

 

Republicans were free to change sabpoena adjudication process just as Democrats did now.

 

 

And don't even get me started on Republicans having double standards and using arguments of convinience - the list is never ending...but to anyone who wasn't born yesterday that's just a par for the political course, so not even a point relitigate it each and every time. The policy or rule cahnge is either good or it isn't, THE END.

 

:groan:

Adults are speaking, junior.

 

What’s objectionable is that democrats expect republicans to follow rules that democrats dont and won’t. So when they grant themselves new powers they don’t have any legitimacy.

 

That’s the problem.

 

:exactly:

 

LAUGH. OUT. LOUd.

 

That is a flat out lie. For that to be true you would have had to have been here railing against Obama, Holder, Lynch, HRC, and their ilk when they were ignoring subpoenas, contempt charges, actively destroying evidence, trotting out the « nuclear option. ».

 

You didn’t, though, did you? You are a lockstep partisan hack. You are incapable of independent thought and have no opinion until it is given to you.

 

THAT is what a hypocrite looks like. Mirror meet AntonToo.

 

:clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker

What are you talking about? What rules did Democrats not follow?

 

Republicans were free to change sabpoena adjudication process just as Democrats did now.

 

 

And don't even get me started on Republicans having double standards and using arguments of convinience - the list is never ending...but to anyone who wasn't born yesterday that's just a par for the political course, so not even a point relitigate it each and every time. The policy or rule cahnge is either good or it isn't, THE END.

Another fail, Komrade. Call the mother ship for better instructions. You suck at this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrimV

The policy or rule cahnge is either good or it isn't, THE END.

 

Was the Nuclear Option a "good rule change" or a "bad rule change?

 

In 2008 Democrats thought it was bad.

 

In 2013 they thought it was good.

 

In 2017 they thought it was bad again.

 

 

So what's the answer, Anton?

Edited by GrimV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

LAUGH. OUT. LOUd.

 

That is a flat out lie. For that to be true you would have had to have been here railing against Obama, Holder, Lynch, HRC, and their ilk when they were ignoring subpoenas, contempt charges, actively destroying evidence, trotting out the « nuclear option. ».

 

You didn’t, though, did you? You are a lockstep partisan hack. You are incapable of independent thought and have no opinion until it is given to you.

 

THAT is what a hypocrite looks like. Mirror meet AntonToo.

 

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

PERFECTLY put, Jerry. And I can't help noticing Anton was too cowardly to even attempt to respond.

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo

Was the Nuclear Option a "good rule change" or a "bad rule change?

 

In 2008 Democrats thought it was bad.

 

In 2013 they thought it was good.

 

In 2017 they thought it was bad again.

 

 

So what's the answer, Anton?

 

Damn those pesky Democrats how dare they!!! Republicans would neve... oh wait.

 

In 2008 Republicans thought it was good.

 

In 2013 they thought it was bad.

 

In 2017 they thought it was good again.

 

 

Amazing how you didn't quite see that angle out from your partisan blinders.

 

 

 

I personaly think that 51 is fine for lower courts, 60 for Supreme Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

PERFECTLY put, Jerry. And I can't help noticing Anton was too cowardly to even attempt to respond.

 

B)

He has me on (selective) ignore. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup

Damn those pesky Democrats how dare they!!! Republicans would neve... oh wait.

 

In 2008 Republicans thought it was good.

 

In 2013 they thought it was bad.

 

In 2017 they thought it was good again.

 

 

Amazing how you didn't quite see that angle out from your partisan blinders.

 

 

 

I personaly think that 51 is fine for lower courts, 60 for Supreme Court.

 

Go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erp

Damn those pesky Democrats how dare they!!! Republicans would neve... oh wait.

 

In 2008 Republicans thought it was good.

 

In 2013 they thought it was bad.

 

In 2017 they thought it was good again.

 

 

Amazing how you didn't quite see that angle out from your partisan blinders.

 

 

 

I personaly think that 51 is fine for lower courts, 60 for Supreme Court.

Interesting that you did not answer Grim’s question.

 

 

Care to answer Grim’s question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

Damn those pesky Democrats how dare they!!! Republicans would neve... oh wait.

 

In 2008 Republicans thought it was good.

 

In 2013 they thought it was bad.

 

In 2017 they thought it was good again.

 

 

Amazing how you didn't quite see that angle out from your partisan blinders.

 

 

 

I personaly think that 51 is fine for lower courts, 60 for Supreme Court.

This is just weird. Just admit, you have no idea what’s being discussed, do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

He has me on (selective) ignore. :)

 

Ahh, that figures.

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrimV

Damn those pesky Democrats how dare they!!! Republicans would neve... oh wait.

 

In 2008 Republicans thought it was good.

 

In 2013 they thought it was bad.

 

In 2017 they thought it was good again.

 

 

Amazing how you didn't quite see that angle out from your partisan blinders.

 

 

 

I personaly think that 51 is fine for lower courts, 60 for Supreme Court.

 

You're conveniently overlooking the *real* issue Republicans had in 2013.

 

I'll give you some hints...

 

From Mitch McConnell: "Some of us have been here long enough to know the shoe is sometimes on the other foot. You'll regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think."

 

From Chuck Grassley: "Not too many years ago, my colleagues on the other side described their fight to preserve the filibuster with great pride. Today the other side is willing to forever change the Senate because the Republican have the audacity to hold them, the majority party of today, to their own standard."

 

Richard Shelby: “Democrats won’t be in power in perpetuity. This is a mistake — a big one for the long run. Maybe not for the short run. Short-term gains, but I think it changes the Senate tremendously in a bad way.”

 

 

As usual, it was the blatant double standard. For some reason Liberals don't see that. You certainly don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

As usual, it was the blatant double standard. For some reason Liberals don't see that. You certainly don't.

I think they see it all right, just don’t care because they’ll always have the media cover for them.

 

Anton just might be sufficiently indoctrinated that he doesn’t see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo

You're conveniently overlooking the *real* issue Republicans had in 2013.

 

I'll give you some hints...

 

From Mitch McConnell: "Some of us have been here long enough to know the shoe is sometimes on the other foot. You'll regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think."

 

From Chuck Grassley: "Not too many years ago, my colleagues on the other side described their fight to preserve the filibuster with great pride. Today the other side is willing to forever change the Senate because the Republican have the audacity to hold them, the majority party of today, to their own standard."

 

Richard Shelby: “Democrats won’t be in power in perpetuity. This is a mistake — a big one for the long run. Maybe not for the short run. Short-term gains, but I think it changes the Senate tremendously in a bad way.”

 

 

As usual, it was the blatant double standard. For some reason Liberals don't see that. You certainly don't.

 

Amazing how willfully blind you can get when it comes looking at your own side.

 

All the people you quoted HAD A POLITICAL INCENTIVE TO SAY EXACTLY THAT, after all, they were in minority.

 

What did these very people do when they got majority? The EXPANDED on the very same “nuclear option” they were protesting in your quotes to also apply to Supreme Court nominations.

 

Not only that, Mitch McConnel simply REFUSED Garland’s nomination because it was supposedly within a year from election.

 

He was recently asked what he would do if one the Justices steps down within a year before 2020 election and he didn’t even pause to say - “I would promptly nominate Trump’s appointment of course!”

 

You seriously need to wake up and smell the roses, because right now you sound like a cool-aid chugging dupe.

Edited by AntonToo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrimV

Amazing how willfully blind you can get when it comes looking at your own side.

 

All the people you quoted HAD A POLITICAL INCENTIVE TO SAY EXACTLY THAT, after all, they were in minority.

 

What did these very people do when they got majority? The EXPANDED on the very same “nuclear option” they were protesting in your quotes to also apply to Supreme Court nominations.

 

Not only that, Mitch McConnel simply REFUSED Garland’s nomination because it was supposedly within a year from election.

 

He was recently asked what he would do if one the Justices steps down within a year before 2020 election and he didn’t even pause to say - “I would promptly nominate Trump’s appointment of course!”

 

You seriously need to wake up and smell the roses, because right now you sound like a cool-aid chugging dupe.

 

This is without a doubt my favorite part: "What did these very people do when they got majority? The EXPANDED on the very same 'nuclear option' they were protesting in your quotes to also apply to Supreme Court nominations."

 

Why? Why is it my favorite part? Because Republicans passed on using the Nuclear Option in 2005 and agreed to compromise with Democrats.

 

In other words, you just destroyed your own argument.

 

EDITORIAL NOTE: In a previous post I incorrectly wrote "2008". It was 2005.

 

But the fact remains: Republicans had an opportunity to nuke Democrats but didn't. Instead they compromised. And how did Democrats repay that compromise? By nuking Republicans first.

 

You fed it, now eat it.

 

 

But please...by all means... continue throwing hissy fit. You haven't made a *complete* ass of yourself yet. There's still room to blossom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Y'know what's astonishing, Anton? It's astonishing that you JUST PROVED GRIM'S POINT, and no doubt aren't even aware of it! LOLOLOLOL

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrimV

Y'know what's astonishing, Anton? It's astonishing that you JUST PROVED GRIM'S POINT, and no doubt aren't even aware of it! LOLOLOLOL

 

:lol:

 

I guarantee he's not aware.

 

The man proved my point while simultaneously destroying his own argument. And doesn't even realize it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

I guarantee he's not aware.

 

The man proved my point while simultaneously destroying his own argument. And doesn't even realize it...

 

It's incredible, isn't it? Nothing short of incredible.

 

*Monty shakes head sadly*

 

:no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

Y'know what's astonishing, Anton? It's astonishing that you JUST PROVED GRIM'S POINT, and no doubt aren't even aware of it! LOLOLOLOL

 

:lol:

No capacity for independent thought and critical thinking is a common trait amongst leftists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

No capacity for independent thought and critical thinking is a common trait amongst leftists.

 

Yup, but it's not merely a "trait", it's a requirement. It simply isn't possible to be a leftist in the first place if you are capable of independent, critical thinking.

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo

This is without a doubt my favorite part: "What did these very people do when they got majority? The EXPANDED on the very same 'nuclear option' they were protesting in your quotes to also apply to Supreme Court nominations."

 

Why? Why is it my favorite part? Because Republicans passed on using the Nuclear Option in 2005 and agreed to compromise with Democrats.

 

In other words, you just destroyed your own argument.

 

EDITORIAL NOTE: In a previous post I incorrectly wrote "2008". It was 2005.

 

But the fact remains: Republicans had an opportunity to nuke Democrats but didn't. Instead they compromised. And how did Democrats repay that compromise? By nuking Republicans first.

 

You fed it, now eat it.

 

 

But please...by all means... continue throwing hissy fit. You haven't made a *complete* ass of yourself yet. There's still room to blossom.

 

HA!

 

Here is what I said again, which part is not true?

 

 

All the people you quoted HAD A POLITICAL INCENTIVE TO SAY EXACTLY THAT, after all, they were in minority. - THAT IS TRUE.

 

What did these very people do when they got majority? They EXPANDED on the very same “nuclear option” they were protesting in your quotes to also apply to Supreme Court nominations. - AGAIN, ALL TRUE.

 

Have you even so much as ATTEMPTED to refute this clear hypocracy? NO.

 

Have you attempted to refute McConell's hypocracy on SC nominations during election year? NOPE.

 

 

 

How do you explain to yourself being completely unable to directly comment on what you quote?

 

I explain it as a bad case politico compartmentalization, probably incurable. And this is why I don't even usually go down this road and just stick to very narrow points and facts instead of playing the pointless broad games about which side sucks more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup

HA!

 

Here is what I said again, which part is not true?

 

 

All the people you quoted HAD A POLITICAL INCENTIVE TO SAY EXACTLY THAT, after all, they were in minority. - THAT IS TRUE.

 

What did these very people do when they got majority? They EXPANDED on the very same “nuclear option” they were protesting in your quotes to also apply to Supreme Court nominations. - AGAIN, ALL TRUE.

 

Have you even so much as ATTEMPTED to refute this clear hypocracy? NO.

 

Have you attempted to refute McConell's hypocracy on SC nominations during election year? NOPE.

 

 

 

How do you explain to yourself being completely unable to directly comment on what you quote?

 

I explain it as a bad case politico compartmentalization, probably incurable. And this is why I don't even usually go down this road and just stick to very narrow points and facts instead of playing the pointless broad games about which side sucks more.

 

Nobody cares.

 

Now go away.

 

Yup, but it's not merely a "trait", it's a requirement. It simply isn't possible to be a leftist in the first place if you are capable of independent, critical thinking.

 

B)

 

:exactly:

 

No capacity for independent thought and critical thinking is a common trait amongst leftists.

 

They can't understand normal thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
firecoco

HA!

 

Here is what I said again, which part is not true?

 

 

All the people you quoted HAD A POLITICAL INCENTIVE TO SAY EXACTLY THAT, after all, they were in minority. - THAT IS TRUE.

 

What did these very people do when they got majority? They EXPANDED on the very same “nuclear option” they were protesting in your quotes to also apply to Supreme Court nominations. - AGAIN, ALL TRUE.

 

Have you even so much as ATTEMPTED to refute this clear hypocracy? NO.

 

Have you attempted to refute McConell's hypocracy on SC nominations during election year? NOPE.

 

 

 

How do you explain to yourself being completely unable to directly comment on what you quote?

 

I explain it as a bad case politico compartmentalization, probably incurable. And this is why I don't even usually go down this road and just stick to very narrow points and facts instead of playing the pointless broad games about which side sucks more.

Is this Russian logic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...