(02-18-2024, 11:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The amusing thing is, I think Cheney is easily as horrible a person as Trump is, she's just better at hiding it. She may actually be worse, as much of what Trump says comes from a desire to have power (abortion rights for example), while Cheney is a true believer.
Oh, you will get no disagreement from me. I hated the majority of GOP positions pre-MAGA and Liz Cheney represents that institution. The difference for me is that I am first and foremost a proponent of little-d democracy. While I can make several arguments that the pre-MAGA GOP was not as democratic as I would have liked--their policies led to the rise of MAGA after all--the MAGA movement is a cult of personality around Trump and has abandoned the democratic principles inherent in the foundations of our government. Even if you don't think Trump is a wannabe dictator, there is no way to objectively deny that they are pushing for more power and authority vested in the executive as well as a lower level of accountability for the role. That is the antithesis of what our government was based on.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(02-19-2024, 02:33 AM)pally Wrote: The worst person is always the one who will lie or change ideas on a whim in order to gain power.
Cheney at least had a moral line she would not cross. Trump has shown no indication that he has any moral fiber. He will do or say anything that he believes will benefit himself
Using this logic you think Trump is definitively worse than Hitler.
(02-19-2024, 08:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh, you will get no disagreement from me. I hated the majority of GOP positions pre-MAGA and Liz Cheney represents that institution. The difference for me is that I am first and foremost a proponent of little-d democracy. While I can make several arguments that the pre-MAGA GOP was not as democratic as I would have liked--their policies led to the rise of MAGA after all--the MAGA movement is a cult of personality around Trump and has abandoned the democratic principles inherent in the foundations of our government. Even if you don't think Trump is a wannabe dictator, there is no way to objectively deny that they are pushing for more power and authority vested in the executive as well as a lower level of accountability for the role. That is the antithesis of what our government was based on.
Indeed, and it raises, for me, the most interesting question. Is this a phenomena confined to Trump? I think a large part of his allure, for those who like him, is that he doesn't play by the "rules" of politics. He's an outsider in the truest sense in that regard, or he at least can appear that way. He has disdain for business as usual, as many people do, and in increasing numbers. He also speaks plainly, and has zero issue saying insanely insulting things about pretty much anyone. He's the unleashed Id for many people, vicariously expressing their disdain and frustration with the status quo. If I thought any aspect of his behavior was pre-planned or contrived I'd honestly give him credit for being brilliant in this regard, as it gives he free reign to say, or do, whatever he likes without fear of losing support. But I think this is just who he really is.
Dave Chappelle raised a very interesting point about Trump, when he openly commented on manipulating the tax code to not pay taxes, because doing so was smart. He then ripped Clinton apart saying she would never fix the loopholes he used as all of her friends and donors use the exacts same "cheats". It was brilliant, and, again, I don't think planned, because he was being 100% honest and expressing what many people already knew or thought.
This all being the case, can someone else come in an pick up the reins when Trump is done? Or will he be an anomaly, an outlier that will provide fodder for historians. I'd be inclined to say the latter, and honestly think he'd already be in the background if he hadn't been propped up the last four years, in various ways by various parties. I guess only time will tell.
(02-18-2024, 10:38 PM)pally Wrote: Politically, Liz Cheney stands for everything I don't...but she took a stand that she knew would end her political career and still did that. She didn't sell out like most of the current Republican Party. Before Trump, Liz Cheney represented EVERYTHING the Republican Party was about. Even after Trump, she voted with him something like 98% of the time. She said what he did on and around Jan 6 was wrong and for that, she paid the ultimate political price. To call her a RINO is just another sign of how depraved the current Republicans are.
I could not, would not, and will not ever cast a vote for Liz Cheney. But, I can and do admire her for taking a principled stand when the vast majority of her peers folded like the spineless sycophants that they are.
I very much agree with you on this.
She was a neoconservative, horrible for foreign policy (from either left or liberal perspective), and a dedicated servant of the New Right Republican party in the wake of Reagan and its Bush incarnation.
But like so many old, traditional conservatives, she had been taught that conservatism was about principles, that the US was a nation of laws built
on rule of law. True leaders were Washington/Reagan style role models, not nasty P-grabbers who publicly denigrated people they did not like and broke laws whenever they could for personal gain, vindictively punished enemies, lied about themselves to brag, insulted US military members for their loser stupidity, and changed their views to gain blocks of voters. She took that traditional view of values seriously. You see the same distrust for Trump in the old guard
(e.g., Goldwater's widow and son https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/barry-goldwater-s-family-against-donald-trump-n542506).
She knew what would follow from "doing the right thing" but did it anyway.
I can recognize, respect and honor the integrity she showed, even if I disagree with her on policy issues. I'm not going to spin up some personality deficiency to explain why she took her stand, when the simpler explanation seems to best fit the facts--she took a principled stand.
(02-19-2024, 06:58 PM)Dill Wrote: I very much agree with you on this.
OMG, what a shocking revelation!!!
Quote:She was a neoconservative, horrible for foreign policy (from either left or liberal perspective), and a dedicated servant of the New Right Republican party in the wake of Reagan and its Bush incarnation.
She IS, a warmongering defender of her criminal ass father, a man who should be rotting in a cell for the hundreds of thousands of deaths he caused and billions of dollars he grafted to himself and friends.
Quote:But like so many old, traditional conservatives, she had been taught that conservatism was about principles, that the US was a nation of laws built
on rule of law. True leaders were Washington/Reagan style role models, not nasty P-grabbers who publicly denigrated people they did not like and broke laws whenever they could for personal gain, vindictively punished enemies, lied about themselves to brag, insulted US military members for their loser stupidity, and changed their views to gain blocks of voters. She took that traditional view of values seriously. You see the same distrust for Trump in the old guard
(e.g., Goldwater's widow and son https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/barry-goldwater-s-family-against-donald-trump-n542506).
She knew what would follow from "doing the right thing" but did it anyway.
I can recognize, respect and honor the integrity she showed, even if I disagree with her on policy issues. I'm not going to spin up some personality deficiency to explain why she took her stand, when the simpler explanation seems to best fit the facts--she took a principled stand.
It's quite telling that in praising a morally bankrupt character like Cheney as having integrity you reveal yourself as having none of your own. I guess the hundreds of thousands who died in Iraq mean nothing now that you have a new conflict in the Middle East to at which to target your fake invectives.
(02-19-2024, 07:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: OMG, what a shocking revelation!!!
She IS, a warmongering defender of her criminal ass father, a man who should be rotting in a cell for the hundreds of thousands of deaths he caused and billions of dollars he grafted to himself and friends.
It's quite telling that in praising a morally bankrupt character like Cheney as having integrity you reveal yourself as having none of your own. I guess the hundreds of thousands who died in Iraq mean nothing now that you have a new conflict in the Middle East to at which to target your fake invectives.
Wow! @#?
You claim praising Cheney's integrity reveals how I have none of my own.
But no argument/explanation as to why that "telling" conclusion should follow.
Unless maybe because her father was a "warmonger"?
and because I've forgotten Iraq losses because there's a new target for my "fake invectives"?
.................................................................................................................................................................................
Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages
in·vec·tive /inˈvektiv/
noun: invective insulting, abusive, or highly critical language.
"he let out a stream of invective"
Similar: abuse, insults, vituperation, expletives
(12-16-2023, 09:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let's try looking at this logically. What possible benefit is there for the GOP to "be in bed" with Russia? What do they gain? What do they stand to lose if they get caught? If you look at this assertion with even basic common sense then you cannot come to any other conclusion other than this is a specious allegation and more hyper partisanship.
I think you found the problem. lol.
People want their narrative to be true so badly they forgo logical thought and common sense. They hate someone or group of someone's or something so much that common sense and logic are not an option if it pushes back on what they want to be true.
(02-20-2024, 09:39 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I think you found the problem. lol.
People want their narrative to be true so badly they forgo logical thought and common sense. They hate someone or group of someone's or something so much that common sense and logic are not an option if it pushes back on what they want to be true.
There is a tendency now to view anyone who diverges from you politically, on even the smallest topic, to be an enemy. Ideological purity is a requirement. That's why we have two prominent posters who can't think of a single Democrat policy they disagree with. That should be literally impossible.
(02-20-2024, 01:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There is a tendency now to view anyone who diverges from you politically, on even the smallest topic, to be an enemy. Ideological purity is a requirement. That's why we have two prominent posters who can't think of a single Democrat policy they disagree with. That should be literally impossible.
And unfortunately, that is by design from those holding the reins of power...
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(02-20-2024, 01:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There is a tendency now to view anyone who diverges from you politically, on even the smallest topic, to be an enemy. Ideological purity is a requirement. That's why we have two prominent posters who can't think of a single Democrat policy they disagree with. That should be literally impossible.
(02-20-2024, 01:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There is a tendency now to view anyone who diverges from you politically, on even the smallest topic, to be an enemy. Ideological purity is a requirement. That's why we have two prominent posters who can't think of a single Democrat policy they disagree with. That should be literally impossible.
Yes, and take it from a racist ISIS supporter, the extreme "them/us" rhetoric is special marker for that. Here's an example.
(02-19-2024, 07:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: OMG, what a shocking revelation!!!
She IS, a warmongering defender of her criminal ass father, a man who should be rotting in a cell for the hundreds of thousands of deaths he caused and billions of dollars he grafted to himself and friends.
It's quite telling that in praising a morally bankrupt character like Cheney as having integrity you reveal yourself as having none of your own. I guess the hundreds of thousands who died in Iraq mean nothing now that you have a new conflict in the Middle East to at which to target your fake invectives.
(02-21-2024, 10:33 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, and take it from a racist ISIS supporter, the extreme "them/us" rhetoric is special marker for that. Here's an example.
Gonna have to mark this day on my calendar. The day a far leftist used criticizing Dick Cheney as an example of today's toxic political environment. My sincere thanks, Dill. You showed me something I literally never thought I'd see, which is saying something.
"Republicans Thursday released a copy of an unverified tip to the FBI alleging a scheme to bribe President Biden — a tip that has not been corroborated but is nonetheless fueling GOP investigations into the Biden family.
The information, memorialized in an FD-1023 form documenting interactions with a confidential informant, was released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and House Oversight Republicans who threatened to hold the FBI director in contempt of Congress amid efforts to review and obtain the document. "
So.....................................uh. Russia and the GOP again.
"The confidential source at the heart of the House GOP investigation into Hunter Biden who was charged with lying last week received the information from Russian intelligence, according to a Department of Justice filing Tuesday.
Alexander Smirnov was charged Thursday with making false statements to the FBI in relation to his testimony about Hunter Biden. Smirnov, who had worked as an FBI informant since 2010, previously told the agency that both President Biden and his son Hunter received $5 million bribes from the head of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma."
Either dimwitted Putin pawns or traitors. It's one or the other imo. Not sure how many there are. But it's way more than I'm comfortable with.
"Republicans Thursday released a copy of an unverified tip to the FBI alleging a scheme to bribe President Biden — a tip that has not been corroborated but is nonetheless fueling GOP investigations into the Biden family.
The information, memorialized in an FD-1023 form documenting interactions with a confidential informant, was released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and House Oversight Republicans who threatened to hold the FBI director in contempt of Congress amid efforts to review and obtain the document. "
So.....................................uh. Russia and the GOP again.
"The confidential source at the heart of the House GOP investigation into Hunter Biden who was charged with lying last week received the information from Russian intelligence, according to a Department of Justice filing Tuesday.
Alexander Smirnov was charged Thursday with making false statements to the FBI in relation to his testimony about Hunter Biden. Smirnov, who had worked as an FBI informant since 2010, previously told the agency that both President Biden and his son Hunter received $5 million bribes from the head of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma."
Either dimwitted Putin pawns or traitors. It's one or the other imo. Not sure how many there are. But it's way more than I'm comfortable with.
We'll have to see if they have other supporting evidence like there is/was against Trump, but this is equivalent to the Steele Dossier fiasco. I certainly expect anyone who discredited the investigation into Trump on the basis of the discrediting of Steele would feel the same way about the investigation into the Biden's with this revelation.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(02-22-2024, 07:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: We'll have to see if they have other supporting evidence like there is/was against Trump, but this is equivalent to the Steele Dossier fiasco. I certainly expect anyone who discredited the investigation into Trump on the basis of the discrediting of Steele would feel the same way about the investigation into the Biden's with this revelation.
One problem, the investigation into Hunter Biden being in business with Joe Biden had nothing to do with the FBI informant, in fact they did not even know his name. It was Christopher Wray who testified under oath this person was a trusted F.B.I. informant on their payroll for 10+ years.
Please show us how this was the same as the Steele Dossier in volume. Please also show us once Steele's info was debunked and proven paid for by Hillary Clinton, the F.B.I. arrested Steele and charged him. Oh wait, Steele was never arrested, he was a Democratic operative so he got a free pass.
Sorry to disappoint, but there is an actual money trail the Biden's acted as foreign agents, there is a money trail Joe Biden was paid through loans, loans that the Biden's have yet to produce any paperwork. If they were true loans, Joe, Jim and Hunter could provide all of the loan paperwork, the bank statements showing the loan amounts going from one person to the borrower or did they also like Willis keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash under their pillow.
Numerous meetings, phone calls confirm Biden associated with the Chines Energy company and Burisma.
I have yet to have one liberal confirm why Energy companies from a communist country paid Hunter Biden and James Biden money. Nether have any experience in energy, but liberals believe these arrangements were for their expertise.
This is far from over, in fact I would argue the actual impeachment is coming sooner than later.
One last very important point. The DOJ and FBI launched an investigation into Trump russian collusion using the Steele Dossier, yet the FBI and DOJ has not launced an investigation to this day into Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and Jim Biden. Why? At the very least, they violated the foreign agents act, same thing Manafort was sent to prison for, yet our so calle fair DOJ has let them off.
Free Agency ain't over until it is over.
First 6 years BB - 41 wins and 54 losses with 1-1 playoff record with 2 teams Browns and Pats
(02-22-2024, 12:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Gonna have to mark this day on my calendar. The day a far leftist used criticizing Dick Cheney as an example of today's toxic political environment. My sincere thanks, Dill. You showed me something I literally never thought I'd see, which is saying something.
That's a good thing if you understand what makes the criticism "toxic"--whether of Cheney or anyone else.
(02-22-2024, 02:46 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Who remembers all this jazz? https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4479692-doj-filing-fbi-informant-got-hunter-biden-dirt-from-russian-officials/ "The confidential source at the heart of the House GOP investigation into Hunter Biden who was charged with lying last week received the information from Russian intelligence, according to a Department of Justice filing Tuesday.
Alexander Smirnov was charged Thursday with making false statements to the FBI in relation to his testimony about Hunter Biden. Smirnov, who had worked as an FBI informant since 2010, previously told the agency that both President Biden and his son Hunter received $5 million bribes from the head of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma."
Either dimwitted Putin pawns or traitors. It's one or the other imo. Not sure how many there are. But it's way more than I'm comfortable with.
Yeah. I mentioned that in a post to Luvnit on the "House Approves" thread.
Apparently the guy was an "asset" or operative for Russian intel.
This appears to be of a piece with the conspiracy theory that Biden got the Ukrainian state prosecutor fired to protect Hunter Biden.
This sort of disinformation is spun up and repeated until it becomes one of those "truths" about the Biden family that our right wing friends demand that we account for.
MAGA/Fox appear to be regularly targeted for this kind of foreign intel operation. Putin want's Trump back in office or, failing that, the political dysfunction which flose from his/their disinformation
(02-22-2024, 01:57 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Please show us how this was the same as the Steele Dossier in volume. Please also show us once Steele's info was debunked and proven paid for by Hillary Clinton, the F.B.I. arrested Steele and charged him. Oh wait, Steele was never arrested, he was a Democratic operative so he got a free pass.
Compiling opposition research is no crime, even if PARTIALLY paid for by the Clinton campaign.
So why would the FBI arrest a British citizen living in England who had broken no US laws?
The answer is clear--the FBI was weaponized against Trump!
I think Bels was not equating the content of the "debunked" 1023 document to the Steele Dossier, which was neither a "lie" nor debunked.
Rather the term of comparison was "fiasco"--the eagerness to create a false narrative around each for political ends, which ended badly in each case.
Though may that explanation doesn't make sense to some who still hold to the false narrative.
(02-23-2024, 07:35 PM)Dill Wrote: Compiling opposition research is no crime, even if PARTIALLY paid for by the Clinton campaign.
So why would the FBI arrest a British citizen living in England who had broken no US laws?
The answer is clear--the FBI was weaponized against Trump!
I think Bels was not equating the content of the "debunked" 1023 document to the Steele Dossier, which was neither a "lie" nor debunked.
Rather the term of comparison was "fiasco"--the eagerness to create a false narrative around each for political ends, which ended badly in each case.
Though may that explanation doesn't make sense to some who still hold to the false narrative.
Eh, let it go, Dill. When he replies to my posts like this he is just yelling into the void as far as I am concerned. He is the sole inhabitant of my ignore list because of his consistent detachment from reality. So it's just best to leave his responses to me without a reply so that he thinks he engaged in some repartee rather than the illogical linguistic diarrhea he typically spews and continue to let him live in a fantasy land of his own making.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(02-23-2024, 07:35 PM)Dill Wrote: Compiling opposition research is no crime, even if PARTIALLY paid for by the Clinton campaign.
So why would the FBI arrest a British citizen living in England who had broken no US laws?
The answer is clear--the FBI was weaponized against Trump!
I think Bels was not equating the content of the "debunked" 1023 document to the Steele Dossier, which was neither a "lie" nor debunked.
Rather the term of comparison was "fiasco"--the eagerness to create a false narrative around each for political ends, which ended badly in each case.
Though may that explanation doesn't make sense to some who still hold to the false narrative.
So Hillary launders disinformation from Russian agents....resulting in a bogus 2.5+ year investigation of Trump. Another guy does the same, this time to Biden, and instead of investigating Biden they charge the informant with a crime?
I'm not following your attempt to make a distinction with a difference, other than the obvious.
But, hey, that pee tape was neither a "lie" nor debunked, there was just no evidence. TOTALLY different!
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
