Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

I know you voted against Trump precisely because of that, which makes you a "personality" voter.

In other words, you're like the women who voted for Bill Clinton because he was "good looking", shallow and vapid in their thinking.

So if nothing else, we've at least established that fact about how you vote.  

The prosperity of the nation is less important to You than your hatred of Donald Trump is.

Because you are intellectually incapable to give me any sound reasoning as to why you voted for Biden, and because you are intellectually incapable of giving me any sound reason that you voted against Trump, that tells me (and I'm sure it informs others here) that you epitomize the "personality" voter.

If you can give me 5 reasons reflecting policy, issues, economics, defense, etc... that caused you to vote against Trump, feel free to do so.

If you respond, I didn't like his tweets and his nasty personality, well.... that is telling, and your response above, makes it abundantly clear.

Just don't deny it, because your tap dancing at this point, is making you look silly.  

Personally, I think the triple (edit: quadruple) repetition of your childish and bogus slur against the millions of women who voted for Clinton makes you look pretty silly.  You realize don't you, on some level, that the vast majority of women who voted for Clinton are liberals or Democrats who basically voted for policies they support?  You need a fresh line of attack with which to display your persistent mysogyny.  

Meanwhile, do you reckon I voted for Trump in 2016 because of his charming personality?  Or are you trying to say that I flipped from being an "issues voter" in 2016 to a "personality voter" in 2020?  

I'll try to help.  As I've explained before, many times, my vote, like many other people's vote, is a considered action taken after much deliberation.  Policies are a huge factor.  Demeanor, leadership capability, integrity, executive effectiveness, maturity, competence and other traits (that you consider to be "personality" ) are also big factors.  Who I think is best for the country at that point in time is a big factor.  The overall political climate is a big factor.   

It is your nature to oversimplify to the point of ridiculousness.  In your world, there are two kinds of voters:  Vapid personality voters like the D women you slander and intelligent issues voters, like you.   I have the sophistication to understand that the juvenile binary choices you parlay are not reflective of any reasonably mature voter and his or her voting process, and I consider myself to be a reasonably mature voter.

Obviously, I am wasting my time here with you.  But I had some time to waste today.  Now, please answer whether or not I voted for Trump in 2016 because of his charming personality?  You are the dude who pigeon-holes.  Pigeon hole me.

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

P.S. I will also stand by this observation of you that I've noticed:   The prosperity of the nation is less important to You than your hatred of Donald Trump is.

Are you having a bad year financially?  If so, I would recommend getting away from the computer and installing some cabinets.  Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

We fundamentally disagree here because the so-called "doctoring" of a message was limited to an inadvertent placement of a period by a staffer. 

No it wasn't.   What the heck do you think the circled attribution and overall presentation means?  

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

We fundamentally disagree here because the so-called "doctoring" of a message was limited to an inadvertent placement of a period by a staffer. Jordan's office confirmed yesterday that he sent the message so it's not something that was conjured up by Schiff. Here's what the Federalist writer has lost his mind over:
"Schiff's quote: "On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all."
"The unedited text: "On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all — in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence"
"Note that the only difference is that Schiff's version didn't include the part about Alexander Hamilton, and it placed a period at the end. None of that changed the context or meaning of the quote"
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/12/15/2069469/-Trump-s-Republican-Coup-Supporters-are-Attacking-Adam-Schiff-for-Accurately-Quoting-Jim-Jordan

p.s.  You gotta get a better source.  It is bad enough to quote the Daily Kos, but what you have done here is quoted an anonymous wing-nut posting unedited content on the Daily Kos.  Sheesh.  Are you going to quote Rich on the Daily Kos next?  Even the headline of the piece you quoted is a lie.  Schiff did not "accurately quote" Jim Jordan.  Schiff inaccurately quoted some lawyer named Joseph Schmitz.  Face it Rod, this was a meaningful unforced error by Schiff that undermines a cause you support.  

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Yes, it is very complex, and the spin goes both ways.

If you think that the Climate is changing, Primarily due to MAN's Influence, then say so.

But don't give excuses ONLY to the left as you invariably and always do, without calling them out on their spin about "Climate Change".

My observation, understanding, and informed opinion on the subject is the opposite, that MAN's influence is very minor and that NATURE itself is the driving force.

I can back up my assertions with facts and science, unlike what the Leftist hyperbole peddling propagandists offer up about Climate Change.

If you care to have a discussion about it, and support your side of the political aisle regarding it, let's have that discussion.

Please explain the Medieval Warming Period.  

Please explain the Vostok Ice Core sampling.

Please explain the lack of increase in hurricane activity over the past decade that we were told by the propagandists, WOULD DEFINITELY OCCUR, but did not.

Please explain the lack increasing severity in severe weather like Tornadoes that we were told by the propagandists on the left WOULD DEFINITELY OCCUR, but did not.

If you care to address any of those anomalies that go against the current Leftist Scientist and Politician "theories", have at it.  

I'll put up my side and you put up yours.  

No need.  I think that the left over-spins climate change like no other issue I can think of.  I think human and natural factors are at the root of the observed changes.  I don't have the competence to quantify the respective contributions.  I do think the changes are real - I have seen the retreat of alpine glaciers from the terminal moraines set down in the little ice age with my own eyes.   I know that the winter climate in Denver is vastly different than it was in the early 50's when my Dad was stationed at Lowry.   

I think that reducing fossil fuel emissions is a good idea and an important strategy.  I think market forces are pushing us in the right direction.  If the doomsayers are right, which I doubt, I think we are doomed.  That said, I think technology will save the species.  I think destroying segments of the world economy in the name of "preventing" climate change is a very, very bad idea.  I think Gretta Thunberg is insufferable.  Although I have to admit that her slavish, fanatical devotion to one side of the issue reminds me of someone here.   

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

And btw, I never stated that in 2016 you voted for Trump because you did or didn't like his personality, but you DID vote for Biden in 2020 because of Trump's personality.

That is obvious to everyone.  in 2020 you then become a personality voter, similar to all the uniformed women who voted for Bill Clinton based upon his looks.

Pretty shallow thinking IMO.  

If you didn't, you would be able to give me overriding reasoning that you voted for Biden based upon POLITICAL ISSUES, POLICY SUBSTANCE, AND CONSERVATIVE AGENDA compared to Trump's  POLITICAL ISSUES, POLICY SUBSTANCE, AND CONSERVATIVE AGENDA.

You apparently cannot, so I'll stand by my statement that you are now a personality voter.  

P.S. I will also stand by this observation of you that I've noticed:   The prosperity of the nation is less important to You than your hatred of Donald Trump is.

Fourth time is the charm?

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"Lawmaker", is, of course, Jim Jordan who, as has been confirmed by his office, sent the message to Meadows. The only difference being a quibble over this:
"Schiff's quote: "On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all."
"The unedited text: "On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all — in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence"
"Note that the only difference is that Schiff's version didn't include the part about Alexander Hamilton, and it placed a period at the end."
 I agree with the DailyKos  that "none of that changed the context or meaning of the quote".

Actually you agree with "News Corpse" a faceless troll pounding away on his keyboard in his Mom's basement.

I personally have forwarded 100s or thousands of emails from third parties in my work.  I would typically include a preface, like "Hey Mark, here is one lawyer's opinion you might find interesting..."  According to the Federalist, that is not Jordan's style.   I can guarantee that I would go ape-shit if someone attributed the doctored content of a third party email I forwarded back to me.  

That said, I am obviously not getting through to you.  So it goes.  I fail regularly to get through to you and Rich both.   Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I'm not sure why you continue to avoid the fact that Jordan's office confirmed that Jim Jordan set the message to Meadows. I understand, as has been duly noted, that although Jordan sent that message, he was not the author of it. The context and content of the message is clear as was its purpose: to overturn the results of a legitimate election thus destroying our democracy in the process. 

Forwarding is different than authoring in my view.   If you have a chance, read all 4 pages of the forwarded memo.  "to overturn the results of a legitimate election thus destroying our democracy..." is indefensible spin and not at all reflective of the entire memo.  A more legitimate summary of the memo from the author's point of view would be:  "An exploration of certain historical and precedential bases for overturning an illegitimate election and thus preserving our democracy." 

I'm not arguing the merits here.  I think Pence did the right thing, and it would have been horrible if he had tried to invalidate the electoral college vote.   Schiff's spin, misquotation, and misattribution on the wonky memo forwarded by Jim Jordan is completely corrupt.  That does not mean I agree with Jim Jordan, the memo author or anyone else on the merits of the memo.  Frankly, we have no idea what Jim Jordan thinks of the memo.

You are blinded by partisanship.  Remember that you started out by "not believing" the text was doctored.  Your original denial has now morphed into: "So what, the doctoring was insignificant and Jordan did forward this guy's memo, so it is the same as if he wrote it..."   In my view, the doctoring is significant, the misattribution is indefensible, and the whole affair undermines Schiff's credibility and by extension, the credibility of the committee.  

Jim

p.s.  Here is the whole memo from the lawyer.  CNN is calling it a "blueprint for a coup."  I am sure the right is calling it a blueprint for preserving democracy.  The spin is predictable.  Read the whole thing and get back to me about, "to overturn the results of a legitimate election thus destroying our democracy..."

https://everylegalvote.com/assets/pdfs/January_6_2021_Will_Pence_s_Biggest_Day_in_Congress.pdf

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Since you're addressing the comment in bold towards me, I'm open to you giving me any evidence at all that I'm "slavish and fanatic" to one side of any issue.

What issue would that be?  

All of them.  I can't think of any issue or topic where you appear to be genuinely open to persuasion by those with whom you initially disagree.  Am I wrong?

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I'll summarize memo by quoting from it: 
"On 6 January, therefore, Vice President Pence will preside over “objections” to electoral
votes, including objections to counting the electoral votes from seven disputed States, each of
which has transmitted both Democrat and Republican sets of electoral votes: Pennsylvania (20
electors); Georgia (16); Michigan (16); Wisconsin (10 votes); Arizona (11); Nevada (6); and
New Mexico (5). As explained below, Vice President Pence also has a sworn duty, as President
of the Senate, not to acknowledge unconstitutional electoral votes – the courageous exercise of
which duty may well decide whether or not President Donald Trump is re-elected."
If that doesn't express the intent and purpose of the "memo" to you, and hence Jim Jordan's transmission of it to Meadows, then I don't know what can... 

Like I said before, Pence did the right thing and ignored this sort of fringe advice.  Let's agree for now that the lawyer and Jim Jordan have wildly partisan and unsupportable ideas about the scope of any election irregularities and the meaning of the relevant Constitutional provisions.  Does that in your mind justify Schiff doctoring and misattributing the source of the document?

I'm not an ends justify the means at all costs guy.  Are you?  Why didn't Schiff present the memo in it's entirety, properly sourced as evidence?  Because he is a dishonest politician, that's why.