blacksheep
New member
Who, besides Habsy, expected anything else?
OT: American Politics
- Thread starter MindzEye
- Start date
Who, besides Habsy, expected anything else?
blacksheep
New member
"This" administration??
JaysCyYoung
Legend
*Most* administrations.
Habsy
Yes, I'm kidding people.
You're an idiot.
CH1
The Artist Formerly Known as chiggins.
I expect it to tighten up a bit.
Bleedsblue&white
Well-known member
A clandestine meeting is your boiling point? Isn't that something that goes on all the time? Now, if Clinton was handing her an envelope and looking furtively at the Bushes, you'd have a point.
That's just your hatred habsy, cause there are way worse things going on in the world.
Habsy
Yes, I'm kidding people.
Are you serious? Do you know about legal investigations and improprieties? An AG NEVER meets clandestinely with the subject of an investigation or family. Furthermore, the Clinton foundation, which Bill owns, is tangentially being investigated.
This smacks of cover-up. Even if it was innocent, which is doubtful as it was done clandestinely, the optics of the meeting are terrible for Lynch. Absolutely horrible. She just lost a ton of credibility.
Bleedsblue&white
Well-known member
I'm saying that in the political world, you have groups like the NRA that sell death, they make deals...that's bad. Big Tobacco sells death, we know there are backroom deals there too...I guess that to me, you just seem like you are ready to hate anything that has "Clinton" in in it, and even though this is a shady thing, your initial post had me thinking they were caught selling babies to fund their defense.
What I see here is what I know happens all the time...the people in power are a group unto themselves, they have their own laws and rules, and we gave them the power.
So to be clear...bad yes, but not was I was expecting.
Habsy
Yes, I'm kidding people.
It's situations just like this that makes people hate the Clintons and their ilk like the Bushes.
They did not meet for 30 minutes to discuss grandchildren. You seem to think what Clinton did with the server and donations to the foundation is nothing so who cares. It is something. For decades they act like they're above the law and they seem to be because of meetings like this.
It's very shady. If the FBI recommends indictment and lynch doesn't she's ****ed now. I actually had some respect for Lynch because she went after El Chapo hard. That's gone now.
What she should have done is respectfully decline to meet because of the investigation. That is protocol.
So sick of these ****ing politicians doing whatever they want, lying through their teeth and having people forgive their transgressions.
They did not meet for 30 minutes to discuss grandchildren. You seem to think what Clinton did with the server and donations to the foundation is nothing so who cares. It is something. For decades they act like they're above the law and they seem to be because of meetings like this.
It's very shady. If the FBI recommends indictment and lynch doesn't she's ****ed now. I actually had some respect for Lynch because she went after El Chapo hard. That's gone now.
What she should have done is respectfully decline to meet because of the investigation. That is protocol.
So sick of these ****ing politicians doing whatever they want, lying through their teeth and having people forgive their transgressions.
Montana
Champion
Well put.
There's a valuable grey area in between excusing literally everything & applying the most negative sinester assumptions to anything that happens.
That's why this thread is sadly become such a dumpster fire.....any type of attempt at meaningful, nuanced discussion about policy or foreign affairs is drown out by useless partisan hackiness. It's an echo chamber of useless talking points.
Hat tip to the likes of Mindz & lecoq who for the most part at least try to have some sort of meaningful dialogue about some of these subjects, while discussing their finer points and attempting to analyze them through worthwhile context, versus simply applying the cookie cutter bias of the left or right, and then bloviating about it endlessly.
Last edited:
Habsy
Yes, I'm kidding people.
Yes because political pressure is never exerted. Bush never did it, Clinton before him never did it, not Reagan nooooo. Clearly Obama would never exert any political pressure.
****ing morons.
Montana
Champion
A great barometer for instance of someone's value in discussing politics is how much their stance is fueled by emotion or the facts. Are they interested in having a calm, rational, adult conversation about the facts at hand? Or do they simply want to hear themselves spew emotional rethoric & sling childish name-calling back and forth.
More they're led by their emotions, the more their input usually isn't all that valuable.
....and once they drop down to the ad hominem stuff, you know they've no interest in discussing anything that isn't in line with their pre-existing biases. They only want to hear what reinforces what they already believe.
Montana
Champion
Nowhere did I, or BleedsBlue&white say it wasn't bad optically.....quite the opposite, I agreed with a post in which he specifically says it's shady.
You simply assumed we were fully excusing it, because you already had your bias applied to us, and inferred the stances you wanted us to have.
You simply assumed we were fully excusing it, because you already had your bias applied to us, and inferred the stances you wanted us to have.