FBI vetting Guard troops in DC amid fears of insider attack

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

56 minutes ago, moxy said:

I don't believe either I nor Steelballz expressed an opinion on Clinton's pardons. We stuck to the subject at hand.

Let me guess . Its irrelevant 

 

Hypocrisy 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

29 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Let me guess . Its irrelevant 

 

Hypocrisy 

 

  Contrived would be a more appropriate response. You are arguing something that no one claimed or is disagreeing with. The number of people and the reasons Clinton chose to issue pardons were horrible. It's been discussed and criticized in the past both in this forum and in the media, and if we were only focusing on that, yes Clinton's pardons were exponentially worse than Trumps's. It's not irrelevant, it just wasn't really the point of what I said. For some reason, you just got sidetracked by it.

 

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by Steeleballz

[moxy 1,051]

9 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

Contrived would be a more appropriate response. You are arguing something that no one claimed or is disagreeing with. The number of people and the reasons Clinton chose to issue pardons were horrible. It's been discussed and criticized in the past both in this forum and in the media, and if we were only focusing on that, yes Clinton's pardons were exponentially worse than Trumps's. It's not irrelevant, it just wasn't really the point of what I said. For some reason, you just got sidetracked by it.

This ^.

 

It's a logical fallacy called "Avoiding the issue" or "Avoiding the question." (yeah, I was a debate nerd)

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

37 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Contrived would be a more appropriate response. You are arguing something that no one claimed or is disagreeing with. The number of people and the reasons Clinton chose to issue pardons were horrible. It's been discussed and criticized in the past both in this forum and in the media, and if we were only focusing on that, yes Clinton's pardons were exponentially worse than Trumps's. It's not irrelevant, it just wasn't really the point of what I said. For some reason, you just got sidetracked by it.

 

 

Why do you people keep bringing up Trump. He is irrelevant 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

20 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Why do you people keep bringing up Trump. He is irrelevant 

 

  I believe you brought it up.

 

  

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

54 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   I'm glad he didn't pardon rioters but I do think some of them were expecting it. I'm not against clemency, but I never liked the idea/custom of pardoning people on the last day(s) of a term. It's a tacit acknowledgement that it's not the right thing to do and being done for the wrong reasons. If someone legitimately deserves a pardon, it could be done at any time. Granted Trump pardoned less people than most presidents, but yeah the issue was he always portrayed himself as different from other politians - the guy who wouldn't be doing those kind of things.

He was different. The way the GOP treated him versus people like Kavanaugh, who worked for Bush, speaks volumes. If Trump had nominated, say, Devin Nunes instead of Kavanaugh, people like Flake, Burr, Graham, Rubio, Alexander, and Corker would've happily shot that down.

 

There were many other ways Trump went at the "swamp", starting with his victory, which prevented yet another Bush from being President (among a litany of swamp creatures), let alone nominated for the GOP. Then he beat Hillary. Building the wall, after roughly 2 years of endless litigation just to get it going, is something the "swamp" was adamantly opposed to, their policy is unequivocally pro illegal immigration. While Clinesmith was the only person to go to prison, the investigations yielded significant intelligence into the swamp and their tactics which can easily help keep the populist movement going on the left and right for the next decade. The "swamp" has been huge on globalization and exporting American jobs, and there's no ambiguity Trump's immigration/security policies hurt their agenda. Not acquiescing to the media, which is an essential "swamp" partner, is another key accomplishment there. He directly led to the media completely destroying themselves in rapid fashion. His foreign policy was probably the biggest hit to the swamp who wanted wars in Syria et al and Trump refused to give it to them. The swamp repeatedly tried to override Trump on this foreign policy and even use Ukraine as a basis to get him removed. Him trying to talk to KJU is the kind of diplomacy not seen in god knows how long.

 

That's not to say his record was anywhere near perfect. My biggest problems with him and the swamp were: His nominations to his cabinet and other positions, particularly Pompeo, Bolton, Mattis, Tillerson, Sessions, Chao, Kelly, Haspel, Haley, and so on, were massively swampy. His methodology of following McConnell's neoconservative judicial nominations in the Heritage Foundation. This was unequivocally a win for McConnell and the swamp far more than Trump. Doing the swamp's bidding on Assange, Snowden, etc., factors that helped his Presidency overcome that swamp by exposing their corruption. I'd also add that staying on Twitter and Facebook and not pursuing Section 230 revocation let alone joining another platform was a very swampy thing to do. Nonetheless, the good for me far outweighs the bad, and even though I didn't vote for him the first time around, he earned my vote the second time around and I have no regrets.