- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Brett Kavanaugh needs to clarify his opinion on this
Posted on 7/10/18 at 9:36 am to AUstar
Posted on 7/10/18 at 9:36 am to AUstar
quote:
Clinton, even with his past scandals, won the 1992 election fair and square.
No - no it was not "fair and square."
Number 1 - the scrawny big-eared creeps from Arkansas ran as a 3rd party and got 20% 0f the vote - the majority of which would have gone to GHWB. Nothing will ever convince me that Clinton was not in cahoots with him. His mission was to protect Clinton's rear. All you have to do is look at his actions and when/why he took those actions in both the GHWB and Bob Dole campaigns.
Number 2 - That campaign was the first "big lie" campaign that I ever witnessed, perhaps the first in history. Clinton droned on about the "worst economy in 50 years" over a minor technical 'recession' that was over before the election.
Number 3 - This was the real beginning of the MSM weighing in on one side of a political campaign. The MSM could - and should - have countered the 'worst economy' narrative with facts and history, but they remained silent on truth and propagated the false narrative.
Number 4 - Again, with media assistance, the DEMOCRATs ganged up to destroy GHWB's popularity. He was soaring in the 80% approval level when the DeMs saw the had to 'do something' right after the success of the Gulf War. They began the 'bad war' narrative where they reversed every position they had taken just 2 years earlier.
Number 5 - is all the GOP's fault, especially GHWB. I truly believe he just lost the stomach for waging a campaign against the DEMOCRAT's gutter tactics.
That campaign was when I decided the GOP must learn to fight the dirty tactics of the DEMOCRATs in a presidential campaign.
Nobody has done that until Trump came along. I loathed Trump during teh primary but recognized that at least he was not 'taking it on the chin' like all prior GOP candidates had done, and I admired that.
I still abhor Trump's persona, but if it takes that kind of brawler to combat the DEMOCRAT smear/filth/lying machine then so be it ==== MAGA!!!
Electing Clinton was a travesty and planted the seeds for widespread 'deep state' corruption that bore fruit with the Obama disasterous administration.
1
Posted on 7/10/18 at 9:41 am to Placebeaux
Timeline is important.
The letter to Starr came first.
His opinion came after.
Posted on 7/10/18 at 9:48 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Number 5 - is all the GOP's fault, especially GHWB. I truly believe he just lost the stomach for waging a campaign against the DEMOCRAT's gutter tactics.
Bush didnt want to win the election or could care less if he did. Its a dog and pony show son. Bush and Clinton are one in the same.
Posted on 7/10/18 at 10:02 am to Placebeaux
My suggestion to everyone, especially those that are going to have to discuss this with those on the left, GO READ THE ACTUAL ARTICLE:
Minnesota Law Review Article
The media is pulling one line out of a 33-page article and drawing illegitimate conclusions about Kavanaugh's position. It's irresponsible yet not all unexpected.
Two major points that immediately tears down the left's position:
(1) Kavanaugh explicitly states that he believes Congress should make a law that defers civil or criminal investigation of a President until after his Presidency. He states that under or current laws THIS IS NOT THE CASE. He is not trying to interpret Constitutional authority, or lack there of, he is making a Congressional suggestion.
(2) Kavanaugh clearly states that the Constitution already provides an avenue for Presidential investigation in matters of criminal misconduct through the Impeachment Process so that any new statutory law created by Congress that defers criminal and civil investigation would not affected matters deemed a threat to the nation.
Minnesota Law Review Article
The media is pulling one line out of a 33-page article and drawing illegitimate conclusions about Kavanaugh's position. It's irresponsible yet not all unexpected.
Two major points that immediately tears down the left's position:
(1) Kavanaugh explicitly states that he believes Congress should make a law that defers civil or criminal investigation of a President until after his Presidency. He states that under or current laws THIS IS NOT THE CASE. He is not trying to interpret Constitutional authority, or lack there of, he is making a Congressional suggestion.
(2) Kavanaugh clearly states that the Constitution already provides an avenue for Presidential investigation in matters of criminal misconduct through the Impeachment Process so that any new statutory law created by Congress that defers criminal and civil investigation would not affected matters deemed a threat to the nation.
Posted on 7/10/18 at 10:48 am to Placebeaux
There is a difference between impeachment hearings and a criminal investigation or civil suit.
Posted on 7/10/18 at 11:59 am to deltaland
Wasn't it a criminal or civil investigation that led to impeachment?
Posted on 7/10/18 at 12:02 pm to Antonio Moss
Yep
This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or
1990s. Like many Americans at that time, I believed that the
President should be required to shoulder the same obligations
that we all carry. But in retrospect, that seems a mistake.
Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly
would have been better off if President Clinton could have
focused on Osama bin Laden24 without being distracted by the
Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminalinvestigation
offshoots.25 To be sure, one can correctly say that
President Clinton brought that ordeal on himself, by his answers
during his deposition in the Jones case if nothing else.
And my point here is not to say that the relevant actors—the
Supreme Court in Jones, Judge Susan Webber Wright, and Independent
Counsel Kenneth Starr—did anything other than
their proper duty under the law as it then existed.26 But the
law as it existed was itself the problem, particularly the extent
to which it allowed civil suits against presidents to proceed
while the President is in office.
This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or
1990s. Like many Americans at that time, I believed that the
President should be required to shoulder the same obligations
that we all carry. But in retrospect, that seems a mistake.
Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly
would have been better off if President Clinton could have
focused on Osama bin Laden24 without being distracted by the
Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminalinvestigation
offshoots.25 To be sure, one can correctly say that
President Clinton brought that ordeal on himself, by his answers
during his deposition in the Jones case if nothing else.
And my point here is not to say that the relevant actors—the
Supreme Court in Jones, Judge Susan Webber Wright, and Independent
Counsel Kenneth Starr—did anything other than
their proper duty under the law as it then existed.26 But the
law as it existed was itself the problem, particularly the extent
to which it allowed civil suits against presidents to proceed
while the President is in office.
Posted on 7/10/18 at 12:25 pm to Pettifogger
Think of what the opposite could mean. If the President was subject to defend every lawsuit filed against him while President, the opposing party could simply file thousands of meritless suits to effectively shut down the White House.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News