Patterico's Pontifications

12/11/2019

Trump Loyalist: The Next Democratic President Must Be Impeached

Filed under: General — Dana @ 12:54 pm



[guest post by Dana]

Mark Levin, who called the impeachment inquiry an “outrageous violation of the Constitution,” wants to set his own precedent in light of the “precedent” being set by Democrats in impeaching Trump:

What the Democrats have done here will only be stopped and the precedent that is so damning to this country will only be stopped if it is unleashed on them. The next president who’s a Democrat must be impeached. They must be investigated over and over again, follow exactly the Schiff-Nadler procedures, the Nancy Pelosi process. It must be done. I know it sounds painful. I had a caller say to me the other day when I said that it was disingenuous, that it shows that we’re no better than them. No, that’s wrong. It shows we must defeat this internal Fifth Column enemy. And they must understand that we have the willingness to do it so they don’t pull this again because otherwise, this is the precedent set in place now. Republicans will be rollovers for the rest of their time and Democrats will be bulldogs. We can’t allow that.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

101 Responses to “Trump Loyalist: The Next Democratic President Must Be Impeached”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (643cd6)

  2. Totally disagree in upping the ante like this. This is exactly what some of the founding founders warned about.

    But, I wouldn’t be surprised if it does happen.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  3. People who want to do wrong will always find their excuse. Anyone who thinks this a good idea should be forced to listen to a full week of Mark Levin ranting.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  4. If Congress is ever to get its status back as a coequal branch, something like this needs to be done. So I say it’s a great idea. Impeach every President on a regular basis.

    Kishnevi (ac9a89)

  5. should be forced to listen to a full week of Mark Levin ranting.

    Actually, his reference to defeating the internal Fifth Column enemy is enough of a tell.

    Kishnevi (ac9a89)

  6. LOL.

    I used to enjoy Rush. I used to tolerate Hannity in moderate doses. But I have always despised Mark Levin.

    We have a quasi-transcript, issued by the White House, showing that Trump tried to bribe the head of a foreign country to intervene in the election on his behalf, using foreign aid from the treasury as an enticement.

    And Levin doesn’t see any problem with that.

    LOL.

    Dave (1bb933)

  7. Imagine how Mark Levin would react to Pres. Obama committing only one of Trump’s scandals. Literally, pick any of them, picked randomly from the list, and ask yourself, What Would Mark Levin Do?

    Now, imagine his reaction if Obama had done all of them.

    This guy and his ilk are bonkers. Disingenuous as hell.

    TR (b7fdd9)

  8. Hows life in that canvas pup tent, boy scouts?

    mg (8cbc69)

  9. Levin graduated from Temple Law. He should know better about the constitutionality of the impeachment inquiry, but he’s just another Republican who sold his soul to Trump for the sake of money and influence.

    Paul Montagu (00daa1)

  10. The next President who does things that match or exceed the stated Impeachment resolution should be impeached. Obama’s promise to the Russians about being more flexible after the election, intended to be secret from the US population, rises to this level. His nonstop obstruction of Congress through the withholding of documents and testimony and his underlings destruction of records in several cases matches the other one.

    But they won’t be, as the GOP learned in 1998 (and the Democrats will learn in 2020) that impeaching a president for less-than-cosmic reasons is politically a loser.

    Where are all those Obamacare fixes the voters wanted?

    Kevin M (19357e)

  11. So I say it’s a great idea. Impeach every President on a regular basis.

    Shooting a Congressman at random every July 4th would be a better one. And it’s a lousy idea.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  12. Memo to Mark:

    “The world you live in isn’t a world of facts and figures, it’s a world of dreams.” – Harry [Clark Gable] ‘Idiot’s Delight’ 1939

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  13. Impeachment is a thermonuclear weapon. It is the political equivalent of a treason trial. You don’t do this for casual reasons or because you hate the guy. What the Democrats are doing is usually called “acting out” and is usually followed by a “time-out”, if not a spanking.

    The only thing it will for sure accomplish to insure that no serious Republicans challenge Trump in the primaries, lest they be seen as opportunists and turncoats.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  14. Obama’s promise to the Russians about being more flexible after the election, intended to be secret from the US population, rises to this level.

    lolwut

    Dave (1bb933)

  15. @14. And the blame for this lay squarely with uncompromising, rabid-Reagan-right-Newtie and his bloviated school of frustrated fishes for hating Clinton so much and turning it into a political weapon; for cheapening it from a serious nuke into a schoolyard spitball. It cost Newt his gig- and bolstered Bubba’s popularity.

    When you won’t compromise, can’t get your way and persuade: impeach –is a bad strategy.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  16. 17. Really? At least Clinton committed a felony (perjury before a grand jury). I think the Republicans were on the much sturdier ground with their arguments than Dems are with theirs now.

    Gryph (08c844)

  17. It took me a while to crack the code regarding Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. Originally I had wondered why they weren’t more critical of Trump. Then I realized that they are all about ratings.

    As soon as it became apparent that Trump was the guy, they had to make a calculation. They had to ask themselves if they would get better ratings from supporting Trump, even though he wasn’t a true conservative, or from being a prinicipled conservative. They decided that the numbers were on Trump’s side, and voila, you get a bunch of Trump ass-kissers.

    norcal (47a1ac)

  18. As soon as it became apparent that Trump was the guy, they had to make a calculation. They had to ask themselves if they would get better ratings from supporting Trump, even though he wasn’t a true conservative, or from being a prinicipled conservative. They decided that the numbers were on Trump’s side, and voila, you get a bunch of Trump ass-kissers.

    Plenty of formerly conservative bloggers dove into the same cesspool.

    Dave (1bb933)

  19. 19. And when I think of all the times that I heard Rush reassure us that his principled conservatism was not mutually exclusive with his business sense… SMDH

    Gryph (08c844)

  20. But not our host!

    norcal (47a1ac)

  21. Response to Dave

    norcal (47a1ac)

  22. #17: See my #11.

    #18: So is obstruction. Matter-of-fact “perjury” is quite akin to obstruction. But the Senate set the precedent that perjury was not the type of HC&M that was worth removing a President from office. Similarly, this.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  23. Both Trump and Clinton were also guilty of “misdemeanors” in the traditional use of the term: acting badly. Clinton with women, and Trump with Twitter and his noise hole.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  24. If Clinton’s rapes had been investigated thoroughly, he probably would have been removed.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  25. @18. Yes. Really. Impeaching for lying about sex is just anal and vindictive. Overkill: misuse of ‘the nuke.’ Censure would have been smarter– likely kept Newtie in his gig and preserved the cache of ‘impeachment.’ So it was a loser move in the end. Reagan did arms for hostages- shudda impeached him; Nixon and LBJ both lied about Vietnam- impeach! Eisenhower lied about Powers and the U2 and ruined the Oval floor with his golf shoes: impeach him. Carter said he saw a UFO; crazy dude: impeach him. JFK traded missiles in Turkey for missiles in ‘Cuber’ – impeach him. Duby lied about WMD: impeach! Obama lied about keeping your doctor: impeach!

    Today it’s merely ‘entertainment.’ Tonight’s House Judiciary Committee debate taps TeeVee ‘prime time’- scheduled t start at 7 PM Eastern, 6 Central- in color! And McConnell literally quipped that they’ll do a trial ‘after the bowl games’ Scheduling into Awards season– and the Super Bowl. Congresscritters have failed to live up to their ‘oath of office’ for decades. Last time they declared a war was December 8, 1941.

    And now, they’re actually tryin to argue that waiting for the courts to act to obtain testimonies from material witnesses– you know, ‘the rule of law’ is getting in the way of their pursuit of ‘the rule of law.’ These two major parties are a miserable joke.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  26. @25. ALL of them are. Impeach!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  27. But the Senate set the precedent that perjury was not the type of HC&M that was worth removing a President from office.

    Calling it a precedent is rather silly, since the collective decision of 100 senators 20 years ago is not binding on anyone now or in the future.

    Also, although I believe Clinton should have been convicted by the senate, his perjury was not directly related to his official duties as president (which did not include boffing interns in the Oval Office).

    Clearly there was a significant segment of opinion that argued (and may have even believed) that perjury in relation to marital infidelity was not sufficient grounds for impeachment.

    Lindsay Graham, of course, took a much different view.

    Trump’s abuse of power with the intent to tamper with an election seems to me far more dangerous to leave unpunished.

    Dave (1bb933)

  28. To 19: Hannity was always a hometown homer for Trump, more of the mobby NE conservative that had to fight twice as hard for validation, bloodied from internecine battles with sagebrushers, southerners and Alex P. Keaton’s. The remaining personalities were much like the largest plurality of this blog, Walker to Cruz and then to Trump.

    urbanleftbehind (b2f0e8)

  29. . Obama’s promise to the Russians about being more flexible after the election, intended to be secret from the US population, rises to this level. His nonstop obstruction of Congress through the withholding of documents and testimony and his underlings destruction of records in several cases matches the other one.

    I disagree about the first point, but you are exactly right about the second. Trump’s obstruction of Congress has been at least as thorough and extensive as Obama’s. The only difference is that Obama was less blatant. He didn’t shout about to the press.

    And this shows why the Democrats are not serious about impeachment, since they confined the obstruction charge to the impeachment inquiry itself, thereby allowing Republicans to label it part of the “witch hunt”. Maybe they want to make sure a Democratic president can obstruct Congress. But impeaching Trump on his overall pattern of obstructing Congress would force GOP senators to choose between vindication of Congressional powers and vindication of Trump.

    Kishnevi (dc4324)

  30. 29. Clinton’s perjury may not have been directly related to his duties as president, but I found it rather odious that his party helped draft the rules and establish the common law concerning sexual harassment, which is what he was accused of and why he lied to the grand jury in the first place. In the end, Clinton proved to be just as fit for office [he wasn’t] as Donald Trump is now; it just happened to be for somewhat different reasons.

    Gryph (08c844)

  31. …impeaching Trump on his overall pattern of obstructing Congress would force GOP senators to choose between vindication of Congressional powers and vindication of Trump.

    As a private citizen, I’ll say a pox on them all.

    Gryph (08c844)

  32. I’m pretty sure that Levin was alive in the 90s, which means he must remember that the Starr investigation started out being about financial crimes and the process ended up impeaching Clinton for lying about oral in the Oval. Whether or not Clinton got serviced and lied about it was not important to a single person I knew, not the old people, not the young people, not the most conservative or the most liberal people I knew. Even the people who were offended on moral grounds were offended over the cheating, not the lying. IIRC, the consensus pretty much was “Yep, I’d’ve lied about that.” It was not important.

    Clinton got impeached for a petty thing that wasn’t important to anyone (yes, I know, felony, nobody cared). If Levin wants to complain about the precedent of impeachment over petty things, he need only look back to Clinton. As far as “Oh, we have to investigate the next Dem and impeach them or the Dems will keep doing this.” If you talk to Dems, the Dem viewpoint is that that is what happened with Clinton as revenge over Nixon. What Levin is saying is the solution was already tried from the Dem viewpoint and it failed to dissuade the Dems from investigating whether Trump has misused his office. And this is not petty. If they’d impeached over the possible campaign finance issue with Stormy Daniels, that would have been petty. The idea that the President would misuse the power and goodwill of the United States of American to make threats to a foreign nation for personal gain is A Problem.

    Nic (896fdf)

  33. 34. Perjury is perjury. I thought Clinton was unfit for office then, and I believe Trump is unfit for office now. I guess it says as much about our electorate as it does about the elected.

    Gryph (08c844)

  34. ”Clinton got impeached for a petty thing that wasn’t important to anyone (yes, I know, felony, nobody cared).“
    Nic (896fdf) — 12/11/2019 @ 5:44 pm

    It was important to Paula Jones, a #MeToo plaintiff before being #MeToo was cool.

    But she was called out as trailer trash by Hillary— so yeah, petty. Yeah.

    I guess it would have to rise to the level of a p*ssy grab audio tape to get the needle off petty for some.

    Munroe (4ae3dd)

  35. @35. P is P— to quote Dick Cheney: “So?” You drop a nuke when a mousetrap would do? Orders of magnitude apply. “So” you didn’t like him: there be the tell.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  36. 37. You conflate prosecution for perjury with impeachment. One does not preclude the other. But as I said, it says as much about the electorate as it does the elected.

    Gryph (08c844)

  37. @38. No, you did; your POV – ‘I didn’t like him’ is the tell. Didn’t like Reagan and trading arms for hostages is arguably an ‘abuse of power’ but there was no ground swell to impeach him– after all, a significant number of voters ‘liked him.’ 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  38. @35 Yes, it’s still perjury. It was perjury about something nobody cared about. If someone illegally downloads Animal House it’s theft, but nobody will care and if you tried to impeach a President over his frequenting Pirate Bay or a streaming site, you’d get laughed at. Impeaching Clinton for lying about oral sex basically created a jury nullification impeachment.

    @36 To use your style guide, I’m sure that Christine Blasey Ford found Kavanaugh’s admission of drinking beer to be important as well, but nobody else really did.

    (of course the real answer is that lying about a consensual sexual relationship doesn’t indicate that one has been involved in a non-consensual sexual relationship with someone else and that Paul Jones probably knew that, which is why she was willing to accept a settlement that only made enough to cover her legal fees and that they didn’t attempt to impeach Clinton for lying about a non-consensual relationship, only a consensual one, so [to meet the apparently required standard of extreme pedantry] such a low percentage of the population cared that it could be safely said to be zero even using 10 significant digits.)

    Nic (896fdf)

  39. 40. In a criminal prosecution, the reason for the perjury is immaterial to prosecution. And it’s immaterial to my assertion that Clinton was unfit for office — as regards the actual reasons for his impeachment. So I’ll say it again: Criminal prosecution and impeachment don’t preclude one another. The attitude that the electorate seems to take regarding the conflating of these two concepts says as much about the electorate as it does the elected.

    Gryph (08c844)

  40. 39. “I didn’t like him” is not the same as “I found him unfit for office.” You put words in my mouth.

    Gryph (08c844)

  41. @41 I don’t disagree that they are different and one may not preclude the other, although apparently you can’t actually prosecute a President for a crime unless he is impeached and removed from office. And I would say that Clinton is, as far as I can tell, a terrible person, though he wasn’t a terrible President. I would say that you probably can’t functionally remove a President from office in this day and age via the Impeachment process unless at least a significant portion of the electorate takes the charges seriously and, that if no one takes it seriously and the Congress goes through with it anyway, it ultimately demeans the process in the eyes of the public, so the Clinton impeachment was more demeaning for the process than the current situation by that rubric, so Levin is, um, less than clear-sighted.

    Nic (896fdf)

  42. 43. I think that’s exactly why the Dems are beclowning themselves in these proceedings. They’re using the impeachment proceedings in an attempt to try Trump in the court of public opinion. And I really don’t think that’s going to fly, whatever you happen to think of how the Clinton impeachment was handled. Anyone who can say with a straight face that there is any chance of conviction in the Senate is, well, wishcasting.

    Gryph (08c844)

  43. 44. And as an aside, I don’t believe that the Republicans intended to try Clinton in the court of public opinion. They believed — for better or worse — that Clinton had committed a crime that he should have been held to account for. You can agree or disagree with that salient point, but the justice system is only interested in one question: Did the individual accused commit the crime of which [s]he was accused? If only Clinton’s impeachment could have been that simple…

    Gryph (08c844)

  44. @44 Strategically, they have to try Trump in the court of public opinion. There is no way that the Rs in the Senate would vote for his removal unless public opinion becomes so overwhelming that they have to, so the only options the Dems have is to win public opinion to either get the Rs to vote for removal or, secondarily, to win enough public opinion that the public is willing to punish the Rs by voting D in the election and get him out that way. Obviously, cynically speaking, the Ds actually could “win” more by “losing” the removal vote, depending on the which way the public wind blows, but it’s a bigger risk. However, not going for impeachment would likely have been a bigger drag on them than going for it, so the risk calculation may put them at least slightly in the win column regardless of the outcome.

    As for the American people, my personal opinion is functionally we only get a win if Trump is removed AND everyone starts to take the law more seriously at the governmental level, but I don’t know that that is even the merest likelihood, so whatever. (My personal opinion being that Trump is a colloquially treasonous criminal who is selling out the country to Putin and his crime ring. Also a fraud committing con-artist, a tax dodger, and a possibily-former employer of illegal immigrants. And he wouldn’t know how to obey a law even if it was explicitly taught to him by an expert educator using multiple methods of teaching in a one-on-one environment. Plus he’s creepy and has really lousy taste in interior design, but you probably can’t impeach him for that.)

    (I hate the word “beclowning”. I know no one cares, but it’s a personal pet peeve and I don’t like the way it is used colloquially to mean “making fools of themselves without realizing it”. Also, I don’t think it’s an accurate description of the current circumstances in the House.)

    Nic (896fdf)

  45. 46. I think you and I agree on more than we disagree on. As for the definition of “beclown,” it depends on which dictionary you look in, but that is exactly the “dictionary definition” in some circles. 😉

    Gryph (08c844)

  46. @45 Remembering back, I think you are wrong. There was a ton of incredibly public weeping and wailing, rending of garments, gnashing of teeth, “think of the children”ing from a lot of people who could not possibly have been at all shocked by the circumstances. Newt. I’m definitely talking about Newt (and his cronies).

    Theoretically the justice system doesn’t care, but theory and actually don’t always go hand in hand. There is a lot of human judgement that comes between an act and a conviction or acquittal.

    Nic (896fdf)

  47. @47 Yeah, you are probably right.

    On a good day, I even like to believe that most people in the country agree on more than we disagree and it’s just the shouty people who make us all think that everyone is at major odds with everyone else.

    re beclowning, Like I said, it’s a pet peeve and it’s been used a lot in recent years, so I’ve had a lot of opportunity to “ARGH!”

    Nic (896fdf)

  48. 48. If that’s true in the justice system, how much truer is it in an impeachment, which is an inherently political act?

    The surest sign that the constitution’s framers recognized impeachment as political is that they went through the trouble to spell out that it doesn’t preclude prosecution after the fact.

    Gryph (08c844)

  49. @50 Oh, I agree. Impeachment definitely is interested in more than did the act happen or not. There are a ton of factors involved other than the act itself. In fact, I think they should be treated as 2 entirely separate processes which should be independent of one another. I don’t think you should have to remove a president to convict him of a crime and I don’t think you should have to convict the President of a crime within the process of removing him. However, we currently seem to have the opposite circumstances.

    Nic (896fdf)

  50. 51. There’s a lot of stuff that goes on in Babylon-on-Potomac that suggests to me we live in Bizarro world. Where to start…?

    Gryph (08c844)

  51. But she was called out as trailer trash by Hillary

    No she wasn’t.

    Dave (1bb933)

  52. 53. That was actually James “The Ragin Cajun” Carville who famously said of Paula Jones,

    “If you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.”

    I’m reasonably confident that the Clintons spoke that way in private, but as politicians, they couldn’t be that gauche.

    Gryph (08c844)

  53. That was actually James “The Ragin Cajun” Carville

    Yep.

    Dave (1bb933)

  54. @42. Okay-you really, really liked ’em– or perhaps Spock-like and completely and totally unemotionllyindifferent– yet ‘found ’em “unfit for office.” 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  55. @48. Yep. Lots of moralist finger wagging by hypocritical Newtie and his similarly bloviated two-faced fishes.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  56. Clinton was a good President, if by “good President” we mean he did okay by America, and maybe better than most.

    Did I like him? No, but he did not make my skin crawl like Trump does, either, and who cares what I like, anyway?

    nk (dbc370)


  57. Michael Calderone
    @mlcalderone
    USA Today comes out for impeachment, joining editorial boards at the LA Times, WaPo, an Boston Globe
    _ _

    Rils
    @RilsRislan
    ·
    They’ve been for it since he was elected, what else is new.

    _

    harkin (15bd84)

  58. I see that the 9th Circuit is now 14-16 GOP appointees among active judges and senior judges are 10-9 GOP appointees. I grasp this reed because it matters.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  59. @18. Yes. Really. Impeaching for lying about sex is just anal and vindictive.

    At the time, there was a doctor serving time for perjuring herself about a relationship with a patient. Oddly, even after this revelation about “good perjury”, Clinton did not pardon her.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  60. Calling it a precedent is rather silly, since the collective decision of 100 senators 20 years ago is not binding on anyone now or in the future.

    Nor is the decision of 9 judges, and yet…

    Kevin M (19357e)

  61. Nor is the decision of 9 judges

    Actually it is.

    Dave (1bb933)

  62. Clearly Taft was unfit to be President. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  63. On to Gettysburg

    mg (8cbc69)

  64. 64. Oh, shut up douchebag. I don’t know Trump well enough to like him or dislike him on a personal level. Few people do. I know enough about his public persona and his private behavior (secondhand) to be able to speak to his fitness for office as a voter and a citizen. You want someone who genuinely dislikes Trump, go find Vera Coking’s family or Michael Forbes. They’ll have a lot more to say about Trump the person than I ever could.

    Gryph (08c844)

  65. Now Making America Great by attacking 16 year-old girls!

    So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!

    Prediction: Melania Trump will be busy at a BEBEST event and unavailable for comment on internet bullying.

    Dave (1bb933)

  66. @66. Personal attack? Shame on you, Gryph!

    BTW most NYers know spawn-of-the-Reagan-era-Trump all too well. He is their creation; the garish, excessive, Frankenstein who got loose from the castle,aka Trump Tower, to ravage the land. Grab your pitch fork and a torch– and catch him if you can.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  67. #67

    A frowning adolescent complaining that the older generation ruined her life is not anything terribly unique. Frankly, she has chosen to make herself the center of something quite operatic and overblown (complete with carbon neutral yachting trips paid for by millionaires). That makes her a target. She acts like she wants to be a target.

    Time magazine, by naming her person of the year, made this the year of the scowling adolescent who checks off a lot of intersectionality stuff. That’s actually rather an accurate view of the year.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  68. 68. I stand by it.

    Gryph (08c844)

  69. @70. The Peanut Gallery usually does.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  70. “Time magazine, by naming her person of the year, made this the year of the scowling adolescent who checks off a lot of intersectionality stuff. That’s actually rather an accurate view of the year.”

    Ok boomer.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  71. Yeah, yeah, yeah Milennial.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  72. Mark Levin isn’t a journalist or an analyst. He’s a performer. Similar to Dane Cook or Marilyn Manson his product is an emotional response in his audience. While cook sells humor and Manson sells shock Mark Levin sells outrage and grievance. The only requirement around accuracy or intellectual honestly his act has is that meet the minimum needed for the audience to still feel outraged and aggrieved.

    So he can’t speak in tongues or rant about lizard people but he should be fine short of that.

    Time123 (441f53)

  73. Time magazine, by naming her person of the year, made this the year of the scowling adolescent who checks off a lot of intersectionality stuff. That’s actually rather an accurate view of the year.

    A few days ago, TrumpWorld lost what’s left of its collective mind when a nameless apparatchik in an obscure hearing mentioned in passing the name of the 13-year old son that his father probably couldn’t pick out of a line-up, and apologized an hour or two later.

    Today, on the most-read Twitter feed in the world, Trump pere launches a full-on personal attack attributing mental illness to a 16-year old girl, because he’s jealous that she’ll be on the cover of Time instead of him, and what we hear from TrumpWorld is the silence of shoulders shrugging, punctuated only by the sound of crickets.

    Dave (1bb933)

  74. Thunberg may be a dour-faced scold, but she wins this round:

    Following the President’s tweet, Thunberg updated her Twitter bio to reflect Trump’s comments: “A teenager working on her anger management problem. Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend.”

    Dave (1bb933)

  75. The dems keep this bs impeachment going they will lose all 57 states.

    mg (b29549)

  76. 16 seems to be the age of mockery consent — or is a smirk and MAGA hat required?

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  77. “16 seems to be the age of mockery consent — or is a smirk and MAGA hat required?”

    So is it bad or not? Or does it matter which side the target is on?

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  78. ”So is it bad or not? Or does it matter which side the target is on?”
    Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/12/2019 @ 2:49 pm

    1) It’s bad to attack a minor.
    2) It’s bad to use a minor as a human shield for a political movement, knowing that anyone who attacks a 16 year old will look bad.

    Agree?

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  79. 69. Appalled (1a17de) — 12/12/2019 @ 12:13 pm

    A frowning adolescent complaining that the older generation ruined her life is not anything terribly unique.

    Maybe, but she;s not claiming they ruined her life, but that they are going to ruin her life.

    Because the climate is about to change drastically unless something happens in the net decade. She knows that, because someone had tweaked a climate model to say so and some official really important people have endorsed that.

    Sammy Finkelman (1e81da)

  80. “2) It’s bad to use a minor as a human shield for a political movement, knowing that anyone who attacks a 16 year old will look bad.”

    This is pretty weaselly.

    Are you saying that Greta is incapable of forming her own opinions? Are you saying that it’s impossible to attack Greta’s arguments without attacking her? (Since everything is personal to Trump fans, this second one may well be impossible)

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  81. It’s bad to use a minor as a human shield for a political movement, knowing that anyone who attacks a 16 year old will look bad.

    So you’re saying ad hominem attacks are the only way to respond to someone you disagree with?

    That it’s impossible to criticize the message without demonizing the messenger?

    Dave (1bb933)

  82. Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/12/2019 @ 3:28 pm

    I thought it was pretty straightforward, and you weaseled out of a straight answer, like the one I gave you.

    I’m saying minors are minors for a reason. Greta is capable of forming her own opinions based on all of her 16 years of life experience, whether that be about voting, driving a car, or alcohol consumption — all of those things she’s not allowed to do.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  83. Dave (1bb933) — 12/12/2019 @ 3:38 pm

    Dave, in all seriousness, can you read?

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  84. “I thought it was pretty straightforward, and you weaseled out of a straight answer, like the one I gave you.”

    It’s not a straight answer, because 2 implies an exception to 1.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  85. Munroe, in all seriousness, yes, I can read!

    Dave (1bb933)

  86. ”It’s not a straight answer, because 2 implies an exception to 1.”
    Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/12/2019 @ 3:53 pm

    No, it doesn’t.

    We should protect minors from attack. It’s bad to attack them. It’s bad to put them in a position where any sane parent would expect them to be attacked.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  87. Jebus, i agree with Munroe. I’m gongt o spend some time making sure I haven’t had some sort of head injury.

    In the meantime just think about it for a minute.

    I’m sure she’s sincere in her beliefs. But the people on her side putting her in front as a leader are doing her a disservice. Kids should be be given the benefit of every doubt and miles of latitude. It’s not a hard standard to meet.

    Time123 (d1bf33)

  88. I think comment 88 is perfectly correct and very well put. Wanted to put that out there without the joke/dig.

    Time123 (d1bf33)

  89. 2 things to add, attacking, demeaning or insulting her is wrong and the fact that her supporters shouldn’t have put her out there doesn’t change or excuse that.

    I think she owned trump on this one.

    Time123 (d1bf33)

  90. Time123 (d1bf33) — 12/12/2019 @ 4:18 pm

    Thank you, Time. I’m gonna buy a lottery ticket now.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  91. It’s bad to put them in a position where any sane parent would expect them to be attacked.

    Because every teenager, the world over, should grow up in fear of the President of the United States publicly disparaging their mental health for the gratification of his twisted sycophants…

    Dave (050ab0)

  92. wonder what hank johnson thinks of mega democrat donor ed buck tying up young black boys drugging them and having his way with them? what a fricking moron that sob is. has guam flipped yet?

    mg (148243)

  93. As a teenage girl, Greta Thunberg is naturally a self-appointed expert on everything.

    As a demented 73-year old tertiary syphiliac, the corrupt criminal traitor cretin Trump is such a small pile of canine feces that he feels a need to attack her because she got her picture on a magazine cover and he did not.

    nk (dbc370)

  94. truly disgusting when the never trumpers attempt to wrap themselves patriotically with the flag

    mg (148243)

  95. nk (dbc370) — 12/12/2019 @ 6:18 pm

    *throws potato in approval*

    Dave (1bb933)

  96. @96 No one should wrap themselves in the flag. It’s against the flag code.

    Nic (896fdf)

  97. #75 — (Dave)

    I am not sure being attacked by Trump rocks Ms. Thunberg’s world in the slightest. She’s a public figure by choice, and being attacked by Trump is baked in the cake in 2019. (As you note, she comes out rather well in the exchange, and even shows humor.)

    #81 — (Sammy)

    You are just wrong on this one. Here’s Greta before the UN:

    I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you!

    You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  98. mg:

    I dont know about Guam per se, but American Samoa might start getting a lil’ heavy for its moorings:
    http://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/12/american-samoa-birthright-citizenship-fitisemanu.html

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  99. I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you!

    You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.

    That would be her exploiters — her parents and the French Riviera jet-set who are squiring her around in private planes and $10 million racing yachts, who can afford to buy expensive scarce boutique green energy, and fool the public with “carbon credits” they buy from “green companies” they own a piece of. She know what is being done to her. Whether her disability prevents her from making the connection to who is doing it, or she does know but does not know how to escape them, either way it sounds like a plea for help to me.

    nk (dbc370)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3390 secs.