What is the End Game for the left?

[*bfine32*]

(02-16-2017, 03:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So true. I'd like to see our elected officials stop caring so much about partisan maneuvering and more about governing.

It sort of follows the analogy of you get more flies with sugar than you do shit.

Their move would be to assert that they have voiced their concern; however, out of deference for the process they will concede unless of suspected criminal activity.  And then look forward to the mid-terms and 2020. It's not too late. I think the entire population would be open to a uniter. Currently. I see Paul as the perfect choice; however, Warren could pick up some steam with just a little contrition.  

[Belsnickel]

(02-17-2017, 06:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It sort of follows the analogy of you get more flies with sugar than you do shit.

Their move would be to assert that they have voiced their concern; however, out of deference for the process they will concede unless of suspected criminal activity.  And then look forward to the mid-terms and 2020. It's not too late. I think the entire population would be open to a uniter. Currently. I see Paul as the perfect choice; however, Warren could pick up some steam with just a little contrition.  

I don't think either could do the job as a uniting force. I think if we keep watching for the next few months we will end up seeing someone stand out in that way, but I don't think it will be someone that has been in the limelight previously.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-17-2017, 06:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It sort of follows the analogy of you get more flies with sugar than you do shit.

Their move would be to assert that they have voiced their concern; however, out of deference for the process they will concede unless of suspected criminal activity.  And then look forward to the mid-terms and 2020. It's not too late. I think the entire population would be open to a uniter. Currently. I see Paul as the perfect choice; however, Warren could pick up some steam with just a little contrition.  

I lost all respect for Paul a couple days ago. When he provided the textbook definition of party over country. If our country's National Security Adviser is illegally communicating with an unfriendly country and then lying about it to the FBI and the Vice President it should be a concern no matter what your party affiliation. 

"I just don't think it's useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party. We'll never even get started with doing the things we need to do, like repealing Obamacare, if we're spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans. I think it makes no sense."


http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/kfile-rand-paul-republican-investigations/

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-17-2017, 07:34 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I lost all respect for Paul a couple days ago. When he provided the textbook definition of party over country. If our country's National Security Adviser is illegally communicating with an unfriendly country and then lying about it to the FBI and the Vice President it should be a concern no matter what your party affiliation. 

"I just don't think it's useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party. We'll never even get started with doing the things we need to do, like repealing Obamacare, if we're spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans. I think it makes no sense."


http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/kfile-rand-paul-republican-investigations/

They can only do investigation after investigation if it involves Benghazi. 

[BoomerFan]

(02-14-2017, 05:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I constantly see here and Nationally extreme vetting going on in regards to Trump and his nominees. Some of it warranted, some of it frivolous. This has led me to wonder: What exactly does the left (insert any term you are comfortable with) hope to gain?

Do they hope that if a Dem takes the WH in 2020 that their POTUS and cabinet is meet with the same scrutiny and distain?

Do they hope their POTUS is challenged by district judges and those decisions upheld by biased (do not read incorrect) appeals courts?

Do they hope Trump is impeached and his VP becomes POTUS?

Do they just want "the truth?"

Do they want celebrities being their spokesmen?

Do they want government being accountable to media?

You know who you are. What do you want from all this "vetting"?

personally, I watch it all and think to myself: Be careful what you wish for.

If someone on the left made the same moves as Trump they should be treated the same. However, that is a false equivalence.

And if Trump insists on acting either criminally or dangerously incompetently, then Pence is the next guy who gets a chance. It doesn't help Democrats per se, but then this was never about "winning" a "game". It is about doing what is best for the country and its occupants (us). 

[Rotobeast]

(02-17-2017, 07:34 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I lost all respect for Paul a couple days ago. When he provided the textbook definition of party over country. If our country's National Security Adviser is illegally communicating with an unfriendly country and then lying about it to the FBI and the Vice President it should be a concern no matter what your party affiliation. 

"I just don't think it's useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party. We'll never even get started with doing the things we need to do, like repealing Obamacare, if we're spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans. I think it makes no sense."


http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/kfile-rand-paul-republican-investigations/

I didn't lose ALL respect, but he really went down on my list.

I'm more of an Amash fan, now.

[*bfine32*]

(02-17-2017, 07:34 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I lost all respect for Paul a couple days ago. When he provided the textbook definition of party over country.

It was just the opposite of party over country. He basically said we should cut it out and get the things that will help the country. He actually was chastising his own party. Something he has done numerous times before.

[StoneTheCrow]

Utopia

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-17-2017, 10:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It was just the opposite of party over country. He basically said we should cut it out and get the things that will help the country. He actually was chastising his own party. Something he has done numerous times before.

That's like the Secretary of Defense claiming he doesn't see the point of investigating our military for war crimes because it will prevent the military from doing its job. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-18-2017, 09:29 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:

That's like the Secretary of Defense claiming he doesn't see the point of investigating our military for war crimes because it will prevent the military from doing its job. 

If you say so.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-18-2017, 11:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If you say so.

If you scroll up you will see I did. Really, what's the point of any government investigation into wrong doing since it prevents the government from doing its job?

[Benton]

(02-18-2017, 09:29 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:

That's like the Secretary of Defense claiming he doesn't see the point of investigating our military for war crimes because it will prevent the military from doing its job. 

what have the bulk of Republican investigations gotten us? Who has been brought to justice, or great errors corrected?

it's a short list.

rand is right in that we need to focus on the things we can (and more importantly will) do something about.

[GMDino]

(02-18-2017, 11:53 AM)Benton Wrote: what have the bulk of Republican investigations gotten us? Who has been brought to justice, or great errors corrected?

it's a short list.

rand is right in that we need to focus on the things we can (and more importantly will) do something about.

I believe Nixon felt the same way....  

[Rotobeast]

(02-18-2017, 11:53 AM)Benton Wrote: what have the bulk of Republican investigations gotten us? Who has been brought to justice, or great errors corrected?

it's a short list.

rand is right in that we need to focus on the things we can (and more importantly will) do something about.

He is right, in that respect (not wasting money).
I'm still a little miffed at his support of some of the cabinet nominees.

[*bfine32*]

(02-18-2017, 11:20 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If you scroll up you will see I did. Really, what's the point of any government investigation into wrong doing since it prevents the government from doing its job?

You have your views of Paul's comments and I have mine. WTS, I'm no fan of Rand Paul's policies; especially in regards to the Military. I simply viewed them as him rebuking the GOP; as he often does.

Feel free to disagree and think your comparison is valid, but it's just not worth the argument. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-18-2017, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You have your views of Paul's comments and I have mine. WTS, I'm no fan of Rand Paul's policies; especially in regards to the Military. I simply viewed them as him rebuking the GOP; as he often does.

Feel free to disagree and think your comparison is valid, but it's just not worth the argument. 

Then why are you arguing?

[GMDino]

Don't worry folks...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/chaffetz-keeps-focus-on-what-really-matters-clinton-emails.html?mid=facebook_nymag

Quote:Jason Chaffetz Keeps Focus on What Really Matters: Hillary Clinton’s Emails
By Eric Levitz

Who will oversee the overseers? Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
In recent weeks, the president of the United States has publicly abraded a private company for refusing to sell his daughter’s fashion line; had his senior adviser lobby CNN’s parent company (which has a proposed merger pending before the Executive branch) for more favorable news coverage; praised his former national security adviser’s (apparent) violation of the Logan Act; profited off payments from foreign governments in an apparent violation of the Constitution; and sent electronic messages over his unsecured, personal Android phone.

You may think some — or all — of those activities warrant congressional scrutiny. If so, then Jason Chaffetz has three words for you: “But her emails.”

On Thursday, the House Oversight chair formally asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions to convene a grand jury or charge Bryan Pagliano, the IT guy who helped set up Hillary Clinton’s private server at the State Department. Pagliano failed to comply with two subpoenas ordering him to appear before the Oversight Committee, leading the Republican-helmed panel to hold him in contempt of Congress.

Allowing Pagliano’s conduct “to go unaddressed would gravely harm Congress’s ability to conduct oversight,” Chaffetz explained in a statement.

Whether that ability would also be harmed by allowing a spineless, partisan hack to retain leadership of the Oversight Committee, Chaffetz did not say.

[hollodero]

(02-18-2017, 08:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: Whether that ability would also be harmed by allowing a spineless, partisan hack to retain leadership of the Oversight Committee

Hey, they stole my words.

Yup, of all the spineless partisan hacks this one is the most awful one. Simply looking away and not doing what's his job. What a loyal soldier.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-18-2017, 08:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: Don't worry folks...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/chaffetz-keeps-focus-on-what-really-matters-clinton-emails.html?mid=facebook_nymag

I'm really surprised Ryan hasn't told them to cease and desist because government investigations only prevent the government from doing their job. Isn't that right, bfine?

[GMDino]

(02-18-2017, 10:03 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm really surprised Ryan hasn't told them to cease and desist because government investigations only prevent the government from doing their job. Isn't that right, bfine?

Just like he did for the past eight year...right?

Anyone?