That you think the president knows nothing about what goes on in his administration makes you - the perfect Trump supporter. "He's the smartest guy in the world - and he knows nothing about his own administration! Only he can fix it - and he's not responsible for anything!"
LOL! Who said he was the smartest guy in the world, aside form him? But thanks for making my point. If Trump knew everything going on at the FBI, so did Obama. And Trump couldn't act to fix it while being accused of obstructing justice, as that would just fan the flames of those accusations.
His supporters who lap up his every word and defend those words unquestioningly. Obama never claimed to be the smartest guy in the world. But he did know a lot more of what was going on, certainly.
"I'm not a war criminal, I had no idea nukes affected regular people too!" <---- Solid defense argument.
You're not the first conservative to flee, terrified, from reality. Nor will you be the last. Neither is your blithe disregard for history unique, or, really, unusual, these days, among conservatives; apparently, what the Trump administration has described as, "alternative facts", really are a cornerstone of contemporary conservative political theory. Many are aware of the rightist tendency to project themselves onto others in order to pretend to have a point; it's pretty obvious. Also, there are plenty who wonder why conservative advocates can't seem to remember the last forty, or thirty, or twenty, or even ten years of American history. And in the time, for instance, since we learned of McConnell's stonewall decision—i.e. March, 2010—we've seen the Senate Majority Leader filibuster his own amendment in order to disrupt legislation; we saw Speaker Boehner, in his time, repeatedly run important issues into the ground for the sake of populism; during those years, the GOP couldn't manage routine tasks like the Farm Bill, and Boehner had to pull bills because his caucus said no—a process that even saw him demand legislative address of a migration crisis, pull the bill because his own caucus wouldn't cooperate, told President Obama, publicly, to use his executive authority, and then sued to disrupt the order. Boehner's successor had even less success, it seems, containing his right flank, but there remain reasonable questions whether Speaker Ryan ever really intended to. Speaking of "ape shit crazy", though, we see Senator Cruz kissing up to President Trump, fighting harder for graft and corruption than he would for his wife, and even trying to challenge actor Ron Perlman to wrestle Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH4) because the seventy year-old actor scorched the Texas Republican on Twitter, and then remember that, before he was a U.S. Senator, he was a state attorney general who took dildos to federal court. The idea of Ted Cruz slugging it out in court against a dildo is a memory I wish I didn't have, but I can also think back to Oregon, '92, when Christianists published a very frank list of intimate kinks, intended to shock and frighten heterosexuals, as if they couldn't do these things themselves. Honestly, I would rather not have any memories that include the mere idea of Lon and Phillip sitting around talking about rimjobs. To the other, it's been over a quarter-century, and there is still a bloc of Christianist politics not utterly discredited among its rightist neighbors, that continues to refuse recognition of consent in sexual intercourse. We might feel tempted to think that's a minute detail, but the sort of implications that one might have otherwise pretended in the past to resent have come to bear in current iterations. No wonder conservative advocates are so prone to alluding make-believe as the basis for their crackpottery.
Again, go find them, and quit pissing into the wind. Which includes the election tampering investigation into the other party's candidate. Your copious and boring commentary, ad hominems, and argument by verbosity are not reality. Sadly, you've convinced me you don't know that. Wow, projecting projection. The mental gymnastics are dizzying. History lesson. The US government was design to promote deadlock, with the Senate being an especially slow and deliberative body, as opposed to the House. The legislature was never meant to be a rapid-fire law making machine, as more laws tend to encroach on more freedoms. You whining about that is pure ignorance or partisan bias. I certainly don't see you whining about Democrats stymieing any Republicans. And you need to support your seeming lie about consent.
We all owe Vociferous a huge apology. As it now turns out, Trump wasn't doing favours for Mr. Putin, he was working for Emperor Xi all along! He's been telling us "we'll see" this whole time and I never believed him!
It's hardly a new point. It's in Oregon Measure 9 (1992), which failed, but they did keep trying. It came up in an amicus brief filed by multiple states in, I think, Lawrence (2003); the state AG who wrote that one was later given a federal bench. I know I encountered it specifically in 2017, but I'd have to dig around to see if I made a note, anywhere. The way it works is simple: Traditionalists, trying to frighten and repulse people into loathing gay people, repeatedly compare the idea of being gay to various acts of rape. Not that the argument ever made sense, i.e., nobody ever really explained how consensual sexual acts equal rape, but neither were we really surprised when it came down to an actual transphobic activist attempting to commit a sex crime in a locker room in order to provoke people against transgender. In Oregon, it was a comparison to pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia. Even here at Sciforums, you can find a record of gregariously lol-ing homophobia doing the bit about marrying a goat, or whatever. See, the thing is, they've been at it for so long; after a quarter-century, I accept these people really don't recognize the basic concept of consent in sexual relations. And, you know, the worst thing isn't really the idea of Lon and Phillip discussing rimjobs. It was the realization, when Scott turned up in the middle of the death-penalty mess in Uganda, that we had grossly underestimated just how awful these people really are. But, yeah, add that in with the traditionalist quackery behind the 2012 GOP rape advocacy bacchanal, the conservative family values including purity balls, the debacle we saw in the TV family with all those offspring, Pat Robertson's rape fantasies, and an apparent crippling phobia of lady parts, and it suddenly seems rather obvious that conservatives would eventually elect to the presidency a boasting sex offender to assemble the misogynistic birds of a feather. No, really, I would like to find some reason for the line about consent is just a rough joke about a handful of fringe cases. When I picked up the phrase, unregulated sexual property of the father, I honestly could not have imagined how not radical the line was. I mean, seriously, I get that it was a seemingly radical interpretation, but the least these traditionalists could have done was leave it an interpretation instead of affirming it as an observation.
Nope. He knew what was going on in his administration; he knew nothing of the wet dreams of Trump supporters (fortunately.)
The issue is a Republican-led investigation (pretty much all the top officials in the FBI have been Republicans since the FBI was founded) into the Republican Party's candidate for President. What "other Party" are you talking about? Nobody here. Here the only content mentioned is the unredacted stuff available to anyone with the price of a large paperback book on them. You should read it sometime. It documents ten separate instances of Trump colluding with foreigners (mostly Russians) to tamper with the 2016 election. Or you could just follow the news - plenty more evidence of collusion by Trump in daily events. His dealings with Erdogan, for example, are by now common knowledge, but a body of new info (connecting those dealings with Trump's Saudi dealings - remember the glowing orb?) came out just in the past couple of weeks. Another of your famous uses of your own ignorance as evidence of something. Its usefulness as evidence seems to be the main reason you maintain it against all pressures and recommendations. If you actually knew anything about State laws regarding the carrying of firearms, for example, or anything about the huge pile of evidence of Trump's collusion, how could you argue your case?
No wonder I ignore most of your posts. To "refuse recognition of consent in sexual intercourse" would typically imply rape. The 1992 Oregon Ballot Measure 9 had nothing to do with any sex acts themselves, only to "promote, encourage or facilitate" them. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court had to overturn its 1986 ruling, since homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1987. Prior to that, a mental illness would have raised questions as to whether consent was possible. If a person cannot give consent, due to impaired mental capacity, it is rape. "2012 GOP rape advocacy bacchanal"? See, you're so commentary-laded that search engines can't even make sense of your references. Your posts are so muddled in your subjective carp that their hard to make heads or tails of. Maybe that's by design? You mean the evidence of his knowledge we've recently uncovered.
It's almost like your blithe ignorance of history is a feature, not a bug. As to gay rights history, filling in the gaps for someone who works to miss the point, okay: The comparison between consensual homosexuality and acts of rape is explicit in the language of Oregon Measure 9: QUESTION: Shall constitution be amended to require that all governments discourage homosexuality, other listed "behaviors," and not facilitate or recognize them? Be it Enacted by the People by [sic] the State of Oregon: SECTION 41 (1) This state shall not recognize any categorical provision such as "sexual orientation," "sexual preference," and similar phrases that includes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism. Quotas, minority status, affirmative action, or any similar concepts, shall not apply to these forms of conduct, nor shall government promote these behaviors. (2) State, regional and local governments and their properties and monies shall not be used to promote, encourage, or facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism. (3) State, regional and local governments and their departments, agencies and other entities, including specifically the State Department of Higher Education and the Public schools, shall assist in setting a standard for Oregon's youth that recognizes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse and that these behaviors are to be discouraged and avoided. (qtd. in Kent↱; boldface accent added) The Oregon Encyclopedia↱ recalls: The OCA’s call for “no special rights” for gays, as opposed to framing the issues as civil rights or equal rights, had a wide appeal. The campaign in support of Measure 9 compared homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia and galvanized a coalition of opposition groups from various faith communities, ethnic minorities, and LGBT groups. The amicus brief lays the would-be logic bare: It should be noted ... that the Texas statute in question does not criminalize petitioners' sexual orientation, which may or may not be a matter of choice and thus may arguably be protected from state discrimination by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather, the Texas anti-sodomy statute criminalizes petitioners' sexual activity, which is indisputably a matter of choice. Petitioners' protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, a constitutional right that "protects the chocie of one's partner" and "whether and how to connect sexually" must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia (if the child should credibly claim to be "willing"). (Pryor, et al., 25↱; boldface accent added) Apparently in then A.G. Pryor's outlook, children could properly consent to sexual intercourse; that is to say, he mocks consent. To the other, we know necrophilia, like bestiality, precludes consent. And if you want to know what U.S. Senate advice and consent was like, once upon a time—weren't you saying something about bipartisan cooperation?—yeah, actually, when President Bush Jr. gave William Pryor a federal bench nomination, Senate Democrats abided chamber tradition and did not refuse. Sometime when it's not utterly off topic, I really do want to ask you about a particular habit; I know someone else who does something similar, and it's as if, since you're just making it up as you go, or he's just pitching two-bit political bullshit, you figure everyone else is, too, or something like that. And it's true, I don't understand that behavior; of puzzling purpose, to be certain, but no, it's not subtle. Meanwhile, sure, your trolling manages to burn fifty-some posts↑ as you flee the inconveniences of history you remain determined to not know, but that's pretty much what the Trump advocacy is worth, right now—trembling, incoherent distraction. ____________________ Notes: Blazak, Randy. "Oregon Citizen's Alliance". The Oregon Encyclopedia. 17 March 2018. OregonEncyclopedia.org. 18 June 2020. https://bit.ly/2V1BP7Q Kent, Le'a. "'Abnormal, Wrong, Unnatural and Perverse': Taking the Measure (9) of the Closet". (n.d.) Cultronix. 2006. Web.Archive.org. 18 June 2020. https://bit.ly/3eeJUNT Pryor, William H., et al. "Brief of the States of Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah as Amici Curiae In Support of Respondent". Lawrence and Garner v. Texas. 18 February 2003. FindLawImages.com. 18 June 2020. https://bit.ly/3hJcxVt
Yes, your wet dreams. Remember "lock her up?" There will be a similar hysteria and millions of Trumpies will cream their pants. And then - once again - nothing. Remember "Scarborough killed Lori Klausutis?" And "Obama was born in Kenya?" All came to - nothing. So then Trumpies will wilt. But then they will find some new porn. Perhaps Biden will double park!
Why would I just happen to know anything about these? I presume you do because you're either homosexual or an activist or something. It's not like these are cases in general history books. It's as if you honestly don't know how to respond to what I've actually written. You just pick a little bit of it and STILL don't explain what you mean by "2012 GOP rape advocacy". Of all the dates in your post, 2012 doesn't appear once.
It's not Trump claiming what the FBI did and, as you say, Obama must have known about. But go ahead and conflate Trump's claims with uncovered facts, so you can use one to deny the other.
Like I said, "As to gay rights history". I would have thought you capable of remembering the 2012 election.
Many Clinton supporters, especially, have long assumed Obama knew the Republican-controlled and Republican led FBI was sandbagging Clinton and protecting Trump during the 2016 campaign. Why are you repeating that observation? Do you have a point or observation you want to make?
Many Clinton supporters, especially, have long assumed Obama knew the Republican-controlled and Republican led FBI was sandbagging Clinton and protecting Trump during the 2016 campaign. That's not news. Most competent Presidents are expected to have some idea what the FBI is up to, and Democratic Presidents have an especially keen interest because the FBI is controlled by Republicans and always has been. Why are you repeating that observation? Do you have a point you want to make?
Again, you completely fail to give anyone who can't read your mind any idea what you're on about. Third tries a charm? Not just Comey and not just from Trump.
