My actual point is that you run around trying to point out the hypocrisy of the left and my media mind manipulation, when you have a colossal blindspot for your own double standards.

politics is just a game for most of the people who post in this thread

Cornyn wasn't made aware yet, but booker was

again ill post from the CNBC article

but
what does booker say

but that isnt at all what he said. he said he was risking his job by releasing them. now he says he broke rules by bringing them up the day before. but thats not even close to what he says

what does his office say?

so yeah, it was theatrics

every time this comes up, i acknowledge that trump exagerattes, that i wish he didnt tweet nonsense, that i wish he were "more presidential" at times

the conversation we were having had absolutely nothing to do with the hypocrticy of the left, but it's the best you got?


do you think it was okay for cory booker to lie about risking his job on TV at a hearing just to help his 2020 run or do you think that lie did anything to help decide if Kavanaugh is fit to be a judge

can you point out what part i left out?

the comments about violating rules were all made yesterday and the documents were approved the night before

Mets, dawg, you need to grow up

You guys are wasting your time arguing with someone who told you to your faces that the more people make fun of him for his beliefs the more he believes them. Smh

Perhaps there's more info to come out, perhaps not. But as it stands, I think it was pretty daft posturing by Booker, and the sort of thing that is going to get played back at him a lot if he tries to run for president - not really consequential, but makes him look stupid.

But I still think that the president's statements, pretty much regardless of the setting, are significantly more consequential, and significantly more problematic.

the next time you criticize trump and i answer but obama or but hillary, i dont want to hear **** from you

ok dad

I thought Kavanaugh comes across as bizarrely incompetent in this exchange:

Like so inept as to require a GOP senator to step in and supply him with an answer. It wouldn't be hard to say 'look, I don't know all the employees of the firm, but I'm unaware of having had any conversations with someone who was' but he just flounders about. Weird.

i think dwetzel and iamnot and true north accused me of posting the fox/breitbart versions because whatever media they watch or read didn't give the correct timeline apparantly

Why should that be different than the last thousand times you try that bull****?

You really want to try to get righteous about that **** now? Really? How ****ing stupid do you think we are?

EDITING

Harris did a good job

but Kavanaugh realizes this is a perjury trap and doesnt want to say something that may come up as perjury

when Blumenthal does the same thing later in the day, basically re-asking the same questions as Harris did, he even says, "SO YOU ARE SAYING UNDER OATH THAT YOU DIDNT SPEAK TO ANYONE ABOUT IT" ..

i respond i wish trump wouldnt do those things

all the time

i also dont bring it up 1000 times at all

actually blumenthals questions were purposely more vague

i again acknowledge that although i dont think her questions were helpful per se, they are relevant, were asked respectfully, and she did make him look -- weird

so Kudos to Kamilla

OK, deep breath. Look mets, I don't particularly want to argue with you, it's not really productive for either of us and it's getting pretty unpleasant.

I've put my cards on the table plenty of times: I think all the evidence is that Trump is dangerously incompetent and psychologically unqualified to be president. I think that based on what he says, does, and what we know of his track record in business. He's a pathological liar who demonstrates little concern for anyone other than himself and maybe his children. I think that the GOP has backed itself into a corner with him and can't really get out/feels the faustian pact is worth it to get tax cuts.

You obviously differ. To be honest I find your logic a bit hard to follow at times, and I get the feeling that similarly you seem to draw different conclusions from a lot of what I post than I am intending to say.

Perhaps you're right that the conversation should be over.

I liked this one

kokiri

all that being said, do you think it is okay for someone in his admin to undermine him anonymously because he feels the way you do, or do you think that person has a duty to come forward and try to invoke the 25th amendment

Don't hurt yourself, kokiri

I don’t know. That’s essentially what I meant by saying that I think we’re already in a constitutional crisis.

I'll note that your entire argument here rests on the Republicans all telling the complete truth, and the Democrats lying about everything, when there's no evidence of that beyond their word and they're already in sham mode with this entire hearing

I'll also note that in the best case scenario of that happening, they've managed to be incompetent enough to not tell some of their committee members what's confidential and what's not

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/eco...-month-n907211

Yeah, it's a problem. I don't see much of a solution as far conversations happening here. Both 2+2 in general and POG in particular are unlikely to attact many new participants, let alone new female participants. I think it's good to be reminded to think about how gender influences how we perceive the issues, though.

I don't believe that NYT can legally be forced to reveal their source, nor do I believe that they should be forced to do so.

I thought that the op-ed was in large part self-serving bull****, but it's clearly protected speech. Neither the act of writing it or of publishing it is criminal, let alone treasonous. Maybe the author has committed some crime, I couldn't say, but if so I don't really see any evidence for that in the op-ed itself. I don't see any argument to support claims of treason. I doubt that even the most salacious allegations of insubordination in the Woodward book (at least what we've seen so far) would amount to treason, and the op-ed author is far more vague, essentially only claiming that people inside the administration try to influence the direction the President takes on various issues, which, duh?