Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

That's fine Jim.  I don't think he made very good points.  He made hypocritical, one-sided, skewed out of all recognition points. 

Let me just point out some facts for you to ponder.

The left and Trump haters like Russ are selective in their outrage.  He hates Trump because in part he claims he's an immoral man.

Russ had no problem with Bill Clinton and his sexual endeavors with an underling using his power to abuse Monica Lewinsky treating her like his own little sexual playtoy.  Russ has no problem with that.  

My guess is that Russ had NO problem with John Kennedy and would have voted for him in a heartbeat over Richard Nixon, not caring one wit about all of the Sexual Escapades of He and his Brother the Atty General right there in the WH, sharing Marilyn Monroe between themselves sexually.

Not one of these other liberal hypocrites have a problem with all the sexual misconduct going on when their Democrats were in the WH did they?  

Did they have a problem back in the mid '60s when Lyndon Johnson was having his affairs?  Not one of them cares, including Russ Carroll.

Yet, Donald Trump has Afffairs BEFORE he ran for President, has not been accused of ONE single sexual misconduct while IN the WH, has shown respect for the office and yet HE's The EVIL Devil isn't he?  

Now, changing subjects in midstream, I'll point out Russ claims to be "conservative".  You and I disagree on that.

And what makes you think You got under my skin?  

You haven't in quite some time.  

For the life of me Rich, I cannot fathom why you believe the sexual immorality of Clinton, JFK, LBJ and others did not bother Russ.  

Please note that I am replying to you bringing up these past presidents and their affairs, and you attributing a "free-pass" point of view to Russ.  FWIW, I do not think that Russ's assessment of Trump suitability for the presidency is based upon sexual immorality.  Russ has been pretty clear about what he finds disqualifying about Trump.

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Good insight you say Jim.

No hyperbole eh?  Do you agree with Russ that Trump is Hitler in restraints?  


Just curious.   

No.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Name a few.

I'll name one, from the first RC post I looked at, going up

"Trump has tried to demonize every institution (that actually functions to a good degree) like law enforcement, intelligence community, diplomatic corp, and especially Congress which plays the most vital role of all in terms of providing checks and balances - other than the voters. Trump attacks everyone and everything that could keep him in check, and with some success - just like his authoritarian counterparts around the globe."

Here, Russ has clearly articulated his concern that Trump's ego causes him to demonize the normal checks and balances that keep our system stable.  In Russ's view this ego run-amok is a far graver and more dangerous moral shortcoming than an unchecked sexual apatite.   There are other examples if you care to re-read Russ's posts.  Or James.'  James is more strident, and they both go further than I would.  But seriously, are you unable to grasp their points without calling them liars?  

I'm heading into a series of appointments.  I'll check back tomorrow.

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Nice dodge.  You played that game before when I made a long post full of questions that you really didn't care to answer and you said you didn't read it.  

For a guy who reads long drawn out documents on a daily basis, you seem to pick and choose the easy ones.  

I'll just give a few questions for you that you may have ignored in the past and see what your thoughts are.

• Being a Constitutional conservative, who values highly that document (which I believe you do) and support it, what do you think of the selective, secret, behind doors despicable lack of transparency that is going on right now in the hearings in the basement room of the SCIF being done by the Democrats in the House? 
• What do you think about the one-sided leaks coming from Adam Schiff who is selectively leaking only that information that he wants the press to run with, while not allowing for the cross-examination of these "witnesses" to be known to the public.
• What do you think of the lack of curiosity of the press with regards to the apparently criminality of the Justice department when they spied on the Trump Presidential campaign, and used an unverified document, the "Dossier" to secure FISA warrants against anyone and everyone associated with the rival Republican campaign? Does it bother you that a department of the gov't, the FBI was weaponized to try and take down a rival political campaign?

Seriously Rich:

I think you are being a real tool calling Russ a liar.  You are also displaying that you are a woeful judge of character.  I know that you think you give tit for tat on the forum, but you are deluded.  No one here treats you the way you treat other forum participants.  When I hit that "Russ is a liar" line in your recent long post, I simply was annoyed enough to stop reading.  

I'll make a good faith effort to address your bullet points:

The Constitution is silent regarding pre-impeachment procedures, so under the Constitution, the house is free to do what they want in an investigative phase before they consider articles of impeachment.  That being said, I think the secret hearings and selective leaks violate the spirit of the Constitution, and I think it is a very "bad look" for the Democrats.  This is an entirely political proceeding, and I think the secret hearings are very bad politics, even if secret hearings are within the latitude granted the house for investigations, including pre-impeachment investigations.

I think the one-sided leaks are scummy, but par for the Washington DC course.   I doubt that they are movng the public opinion needle much.  The leaks will backfire immensely, if the D's can not eventually publicly articulate strong articles of impeachment. 

Your third bullet point is loaded with factual conclusions, but to the extent that Obama's FBI and Justice were in fact weaponized, I hope the culprits are exposed, prosecuted, and convicted.  Personally, I think Comey and Rosenstein and some of their subordinates are smug bastards, but I'm leary of my own bias here.  I am waiting for the IG report and Durham's indictments, if any, before I form an opinion about the conclusions contained in your third bullet point.

Jim 

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

I don't usually read long posts, but I did read that. 

I've said it here before, Amy Klobuchar 2020, but Bloomberg would work.

Hi Jim:

Do you think Amy Klobuchar has a chance?  She is polling nationally at 2%

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

I don't know the history of come-from-behind nomination fights all that well, but I doubt that anyone has ever been nominated when polling at 2% a year out.  If I am wrong, please let me know.

Biden, of course, is hogging the D center lane.  Yet his fundraising is crashing and burning according to the Brett Stephens dialog Russ posted, so Biden is probably toast.  The only way Klobuchar has a chance is if Biden flames out soon and opens up the center lane.  Mayor Pete is is angling for that lane too, though...

Jim 

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

I wold love Klobuchar to be President, but she is just too boring as a candidate. Boring is good to me at this point in history, but I don't see how she catches fire in the primary. I'd vote for her without hesitation.

Michael Bennett is the only candidate I've donated to. My wife and I have an agreement that we will not send donations to anyone without both of us being ok with it. She has made an exception for Michael Bennett because it was intended to try and keep him on the debate stage. He actually projects like a pol, and I don't know why he is not getting any attention. You probably know the guy, Jim, any idea on this?

PS Even though he is covered from head to toe in his own excrament, I'd vote for Mike Pence (in 2020 only) over any of them.

Bennett is a Clinton-lineage insider.  I don't think that plays well now.  On a happier note, did you see the photo of the hero dog that Trump released (Rich posted it).  Look familiar?  

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Yep. He's a Belgian! Ours is a Tervuren and the hero is a Malinois. Belgians were bred as military dogs in WW1. We lost ours to cancer a few weeks ago. It all happened in the space of 8 hours. Still not over it yet. They're tough little buggers and we had no idea he was even sick.

RIP Kodi.

Hi Russ:

I'm very very sorry to hear about Kodi.  Jim 

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Actually no. There is no doubt, though, that Trump's impeachment is assured. The fallout of all this for the Republican party will be awful too. It's 100% clear now that the Sondland did quid pro quo with Giuliani as directed by the President. No amount of shouting "No quid pro quo" from sharpie notes at the press corps is going to erase this crystal clear conclusion.

Hi James:

Did you recently retire?  You seem to be spending more time than usual here...which is curious given that you are treated poorly by the most active participants.  I plan to retire in a couple of years, I wonder if I'll spend more time on line, or less?

Anyhow, Trump has probably never taken any action in his life without expecting a quid pro quo.  Real estate developers, deal guys and politicians always expect a quid pro quo, all of them.  So, I don't think the average voter in his or her heart thinks that leveraging the office for a quid pro quo is anything but ordinary, for Trump and for politicians in general.   Even if the average voter thinks leveraging the office is slimy and reprehensible.  

I suspect that this is why the Ukrainian calls are now being cast as bribery.  I'm not sure that the Democrats can make that stick, though - without the president of the Ukraine stating that he felt pressured.  My guess is that Trump is impeached, but quickly acquitted by the Senate and that the R's don't suffer much blow-back at all.  I firmly believe that Trumps reelection chances and the R's overall 2020 chances hinge entirely on whom the D's nominate, and the then prevalent feelings about the economy.  

We'll see soon enough!  Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Now I realize he's not you, Rich Davis or a patent lawyer but...

...

Hi Rod:

Was there any part of my analysis that you disagree with?  

Jim

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

https://www.foxnews.com/media/sondland-declares-quid-pro-quo-pundits-call-testimony-damaging-to-trump

Even TASS admits Sondland said aid and a meeting was tied to announcing an investigation of the Bidens.

I'm taking a poll on Richard and Greg. In regards to the overwhelming testimony of 12 US officials saying the same thing, do you believe Richard and Greg:

1) Have been brainwashed by alt-right media and believe their own crap
2) Willfully ignore the evidence and press on anyway, knowing they are spouting BS
3) Couldn't care less either way and just want to support Trump and tweak his detractors

I don't really care what you or Richard think on this one, Greg. This is for the forum.

Sorry I'm late - 3