Smith and Swalwell.. Now what did they lie about? Almost too dry to listen to .
Pretty strong shit
- Thread starter Loyal Coug1
- Start date
I'm going to take a slightly different tack to this discussion.
My initial thought when I heard the initial uproar and then spent 10 minutes delving a bit deeper was that the three Univ Pres's were simply too dumb to hold their jobs. All three appeared to me to be examples of the Peter Principle at work, this time in academia. None of them understood how to answer a leading question. How do you get to be Pres of those three schools and not know how to answer that kind of question as any semi-competent politician or even business owner would answer? The right answer which occurred to me (and I'm sure there are several possibilities) would be that any form of genocide is wrong and must be condemned. Then shut up. If the congressman wants to grandstand, let him do so. Reply with simple answers. High moral ground.
You cannot be President, Chancellor, CEO, owner, etc., of a high profile organization of any type today without being able to answer a leading question. All three of these bozos flunked...one worse than the other two, but they all blew it. One would assume that their replacements will be selected with somewhat different criteria, though the Peter Principle cannot exist without a certain amount of organizational disfunction; so maybe they will simply pick a clone of the one who could not answer what should have been a simple question with a proper declarative sentence.
My initial thought when I heard the initial uproar and then spent 10 minutes delving a bit deeper was that the three Univ Pres's were simply too dumb to hold their jobs. All three appeared to me to be examples of the Peter Principle at work, this time in academia. None of them understood how to answer a leading question. How do you get to be Pres of those three schools and not know how to answer that kind of question as any semi-competent politician or even business owner would answer? The right answer which occurred to me (and I'm sure there are several possibilities) would be that any form of genocide is wrong and must be condemned. Then shut up. If the congressman wants to grandstand, let him do so. Reply with simple answers. High moral ground.
You cannot be President, Chancellor, CEO, owner, etc., of a high profile organization of any type today without being able to answer a leading question. All three of these bozos flunked...one worse than the other two, but they all blew it. One would assume that their replacements will be selected with somewhat different criteria, though the Peter Principle cannot exist without a certain amount of organizational disfunction; so maybe they will simply pick a clone of the one who could not answer what should have been a simple question with a proper declarative sentence.
Why do you support suppression of the voters in Santos district?
Doesn’t he work for them?
Doesn’t he work for them?
Agree that they should have followed your advice. Over the past 20 or so years, we've ran into a few different sticky situations on projects, and we never say more than the absolute minimum when speaking in a public forum.
When they pressed the presidents about what should be done to stop the genocide and anti-semitic talk, they would have been better served to just go full blown lawyer mode and say that while they have policies in place to deal with hate speech, given the feedback, they would be working with their legal counsel and other appropriate parties to see what changes, if any, should be made to comply with the law. Playing at being a lawyer and saying, "it depends on the context" was a dumb decision.
When further pressed, they should say that their job at the university is to bring together groups of people to create the best environment that they can and that they aren't a dictator who makes their decisions unilaterally. They would be working with legal counsel, university staff, student groups and other stakeholders to evaluate future policies. No university president should ever be making a decision in a vacuum.
Rinse and repeat. Offer no opinions beyond that. They'd still get roasted because that's what happens there.
EDIT: when it comes to current punishments....just say that you are working with legal counsel. People hate it when you say that, but it's better than what happened.
Last edited:
Schiff, not Smith. Both of those bozos lied continuously about the whole Russian collusion scam, among other things. They both kept insisting that the damning evidence was right out there in plain sight, when they both knew there was absolutely no evidence at all. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.
I'm not sure if the purpose of the hearing was specifically anti-semitism on their campuses or if the purpose was something else and Stefanik went outside the lines.
With that said, I 100 percent agree that they were ill-prepared and seemed to think if they provided a mealy-mouthed answer, they could skate by. They were obviously not prepared to answer hostile, let alone uncomfortable questions.
Also that their disciplinary procedures require due process, and that they are not going to impose judgment on a student while sitting in a congressional chamber. As presidents they have responsibilities to all students, not just the ones the congresswoman is using to grandstand.
Yep… not sure why
Oh that . I thought his son meeting with Russians in June of 16 was a start. Email saying that would be great if information was released in October that would be great . If that happened during Reagan’s days not sure we would have an awe shucks attitude .
And awful hard to find and prove collusion when there are 10 incidents of obstruction . And not sure they could ever prove collusion . What he did do up until recently was an absolute no no in not turning away Russian interference but rather embracing it .
You think Obama should accept “opposition research” from Iran?
1. Collusion is not a crime.
2. The left leaning and controlled intelligence community investigated the entire Russian collusion hoax and found zero evidence.
3. No matter how many times you bring up the Trump Tower meeting there still was nothing done wrong. Full stop.
4. Apparently the entire political establishment has decreed that it is acceptable to accept "opposition research" from anyone and everyone, no matter what you and I think.
5. And as far as true opposition research, meaning finding out bad things on an opponent that are TRUE, what difference does it make where it comes from, or who you get it from? If it is true, get it out there in the public domain and let the voters decide.
Edit: BTW, with all the lying and deception that Schiff and Swallwell engaged in for their attempt to unseat/impeach President Trump, why is THAT not insurrection and "a threat to our democracy", which is what the libs like to whine every time that something is said or done that they don't like/agree with.
Last edited:
Because distorting facts and focusing on things that look fishy is a far cry from inciting a mob to storm the Capitol for the direct purpose of stopping government function.
That saying doesn't really apply in this situation. Rent free implies that you shouldn't care what someone thinks. In the case of Donald Trump, we should be collectively terrified about what and how the man thinks.
FWIW, I'm not a fan of Joe Biden and don't think he should be running for President and I don't want a liberal president. I would prefer a good old fashioned GOP guy from the 80's or 90's though. You refer to them as RINO's but it's not the insult that you think it is.
That portion of the party you refer to in your 2nd paragraph sadly no longer exists. That's all I have to say about that.
Stretch...I will be honest, I am truly fascinated. With regards to Trump he sure seems like he is given a long leash by his base. So I never ask about the things I think that should disqualify him as President, but rather ask the following question...what is a bridge too far for you that you cant support him? That he went too far. And what would that look like and what evidence would you need to see for you to come to a conclusion he over steps the bounds of what you can accept?
For many, I thought it would be banging a porn star and paying her off and committing adultery on his wife as she was home with his six month old son. For some I thought it would be seeking help from a country that has 800 nukes pointed at us. For others I thought it would be having another adulterous affair with Karen McDougall
Some I thought would have a problem with him not giving back classified documents. He had his chance to say "my bad, here you go". Instead he moved them and wanted to keep them. And there is evidence he showed top secret information to at least two people. Why is that acceptable?
As to your list of 5
1) Collusion is not a crime. Nope. You are right. Obama should have been able to collude with the Iranians since it seems like it is in our countries best interest. Yes, Colluding with countries who have nukes pointed at us is not a crime but should prevent anyone that has their own interest above the safety of the countries and not qualified to run the country.
2) In the Russian hoax, again, Trump junior met with Russian representatives and the President lied about it for seven months. If it was ok, why lie? That is always a question that I can't seem to answer. Also, are you saying they were able to investigate everything unfettered, or was there ten examples of obstruction by the President? Why obstruct if you have nothing to hide.
3) You and I disagree with the severity of it. You do get hundreds of lives (spies) have been lost trying to protect us from a country who has nukes pointed at us. I would bet Ronald Reagan would call this action traitorous.
4) When the system says it is ok to accept research from Iran, (Iraq to some degree) N Korea, and Russia, then we are really in trouble. Please tell me another candidate who has used research from a country that has nukes pointed at us?
5) Clearly you have accepted it. So if Biden gets help from Iran and he wins I understand it is just biz as normal. And you wouldn't say a word. That is where you and I differ.
Moving forward, when Trump wins will it be ok for Biden not to accept the results, get a fake set of electors and have Harris do what Pence did not do?
And here is a question, what do you think a Trump 2024-2028 term will look like? Do you think he leaves office in 2029? Do you think my kids, your cousins, nieces and nephews, brothers and sisters will have the same ability to vote someone into or out of office in November of 2028 and moving forward?
I'm not a big Biden fan either. I wish Mitt Romney would run again. He resembles the guys you are talking about. We just absolutely can't have that Cheeto get back in the white House. He would destroy this country. A 4 year reign of terror and retribution.
You don't know the answer to the edit? Which impeachment, the first or the second. The founding fathers gave a check on the Presidency. It is a function of their jobs. Did they try to impeach Bush one or two? How about Reagan?
If you are talking about impeachment 1, they nor I saw the phone call as perfect. He tried to shake down Ukraine for information about Biden. He withheld funds from Ukraine until the press found out. Those funds have been distributed in June every year, why was it withheld until September?
And it is in congress rights to try to impeach Biden if they have evidence he did something wrong. That isn't an insurrection rather than a power given to congress to prevent a dictatorship.
Four...you think he will leave after 2028? He already said he would like to terminate the constitution. He wont have the Eric Hershman's and the like to keep him from his worse impulses.
The conservatives have a perfect opportunity to put a moderate on the ballot since the whole "they'll overturn Roe v Wade" thing can no longer be their battle standard for any one on the right.
Btw, remember when sleepy Joe promised to wave his wand and undo that ruling? He must have forgot.
What moderate? Sure as shit not that POS DeSantis. That guy is a f-ing menace. Nikki Haley maybe. Christie maybe. Romney and Manchin are my choice for a ticket.
Find one. Its kinda the biggest problem with both sides is there are no moderates to be found.
I do like a lot of what Ramaswamy is saying, but he's a little too nutty.
Last edited:
I would vote for Haley and Christie if they would beat Trump...and they aren't close. They need to go to the defending champs level....call him a Fugazi, Forrest Trump, Draft Dodger Donnie, Agent Orange. That is where they need to go. Explain how this brilliant businessman managed his debt by screwing the blue collar workers who constructed his buildings and had to file BK not once, not twice, not three times but four times. Plus daddy bailing him out twice. Yes, his ardent supporters he screwed and asked them to take anywhere from 10 cents to 50 cents on the dollar cause he couldn't manage his debt. That is the level in which they need to go.
And what was the purpose of the distorting and lying? It was to remove a properly and legally elected president by any means possible. Which, seems an awful lot like insurrection to me.
If you think Trump was actually inciting a mob to go bust up the capital, perhaps you should go read what he actually said. Here is a hint- focus on the part where he said to go up and make their voices peaceably heard.
The word "peace" in any of its form appears in his speech exactly once. "Fight" is in it 21 times. "fraud" 22 times. "suppress" 9 times. "destroy" 6 times. "steal" 4 times. "kill" and "cheat" 3 times each. Those words are interspersed among his wild-ass claims and accusations that had zero support.
His speech covered 31 pages, he said "peacefully" on page 9, and then spent 22 pages just spinning people up. Focusing on "peacefully" misses what his point was...and he got what he wanted.
Geezus christ Stretch - come f-ing on. Yes he incited the mob. How can you even suggest otherwise? I don't give a F what the one line you refer to said. I watched his speech and what he said.
