ewsieg

3 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

I'm hearing something about the Republicans not wanting to fund the repairs for the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Maryland? They voted against infrastructure repairs in their own districts but take credit for them. Who votes for these people?

Shipping company doesn't have insurance?

10 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

 Morans! If it hadn't hit the bridge at the point to collapse it, it wouldn't have hit it at all. The only parts of the bridge in the water where the ship is are the points that hold it up. D'OH!

I have to imagine there is a study out there on it, but I really do wonder if we have a greater percentage of conspiracy theorists, or unlike 20 years ago where all they had was Coast to Coast AM to air their beliefs, they have social media which makes it seem a larger group than it really is.

While the nutso reaction to this bridge accident is crazy, I unfortunately even saw a source I'd consider legitimate have some labor psychologist they quoted that said fatigue could have been a factor due to the time.  Not as crazy as 'they did it on purpose', but arguably just as reckless if she really was some 'expert' in the field as there is no way she knew any details that could have made her question that.

18 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I am not expecting SS cuts for me, but I am also not counting on them. 

I still say it's a fabricated crisis easily and logically fixed by dropping the cap.   

Everything I've read is that this change alone would cover up to roughly 75% of the deficit alone.  Still, you're going to have to look at something else to shore it up with it.  If I was younger, I would have preferred an option to opt out of SS altogether where let's say SS tax remains but the government only gets the company paid portion and I get to keep the portion I would have paid but have to invest it.   Still think that would be a good option for younger generations.  Of course they'd probably pair up with some big investment firms and find a way to screw us with that anyway.  If only half my SS went to a private account since I was working though, i'd have a hell of a lot more than I'll ever get out of SS, assuming I still get any at all.

Additionally opting out, while provides more long term ability to solidify SS, requires even more cash up front to cover it.  

32 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

At least 20 years!

Jeez, i'm old.  Apparently pretty bad at this debating thing too.  I've moved to the left in the last 20 years yet probably the 2nd most 'far right' guy on this board now.  I can't even move towards you folks politically without screwing that up!  lol

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

Never let a crisis go to waste.... even those that clearly have nothing political to do with them.

Not only do they not let it go to waste, specifically the point the guest speaks to is the part that is vulnerable for them.  "hey listen, that's why the senate republicans need to stay strong as it needs 60 votes".  WTF, Senate republicans were not the problem, ridiculous that they get away with it.

3 minutes ago, pfife said:

I don't think this is true, unfortunately. 

I guess maybe we need to define 'recreational' first.  I was thinking of a recreational user as maybe someone that uses once a week or less.  Maybe I am wrong, but the biggest issue with Opioids is that taking them a little to long is what leads to dependency, hence someone doing it 'recreationally' a couple times a week is soon not doing it 'recreationally', but is now addicted and needing it on a more consistent basis.

No one is using Opioids for an occasional good time like folks do with other recreational drugs.  The medical world has recognized the error of its ways and shut off easy access, which for folks dealing with medical issues now, is a great thing as Opioids are great for short term use and shown not to be an issue if only used for short term use.

For folks already addicted to them, that's where the rise of heroin use came into play as well as counterfeit drugs.  Kind of a tangent, but related, I have wondered in areas that have approved marijuana sales, will that help fight the opioid addiction.  Granted in my older years I didn't use drugs, but out of high school, yeah I 'knew a guy' that myself and a few buddies would get some weed off of.  If anyone wanted to try something different, that would be the logical guy to go to.  For Michigan, I definitely wonder/hope, that legalizing weed will simply put folks out of touch with someone that can easily score an opioid for them, pushing them to 'settle' for weed.  

7 hours ago, pfife said:

sorry, tangent - Doug Jones is the president we need.

 

i'd vote for him.

4 minutes ago, GoBlue23 said:

What do you mean "If"?  Even Trump has admitted to taking them, claiming they were his to keep.  The difference here is that we have NARA reaching out multiple times telling him they were not his to keep.  

As for consequences, I don't think it's fair to argue that a President and some low level employee are going to receive the same scrutiny and consequences when it comes to their handling of classified documents.  

Well if it's not fair to a President to subject them to the rules and regulations of classified docs, then NARA should have never bothered him in the first place and ignored it.

My "if" was stating that "if" that scenario happened, I still think he should be held accountable, but apparently I should just understand that our leaders don't have to be subject to the same laws as us low level citizens.

13 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

Biden, Biden and Biden. Get off that train, it's not the defense you think it is. If you rob a bank, would you go into court and say that other guy robbed 3 banks? It's just a RW talking point. Kinda like Hunters laptop or Hillary's emails. So when it comes out that Trump sold America's secrets to the highest bidder, what's going to be your excuse for that man-child then? 

yeah, you clearly have no background on my political thoughts.  I never voted for Trump.  Since he was elected I have only voted for one local republican who has a history of working with both sides of the aisle and was encouraged to run for the position by a democrat.  IIRC, I only voted for one democrat prior to that.  He's a horrible person, he deserves to, at minimum, die in jail.  But I refuse to not try and keep others held accountable for their actions, even if they only robbed 1 bank compared to Trumps 3 banks.  

23 minutes ago, GoBlue23 said:

All Trump had to do was turn over the documents when asked and he wouldn't have been charged. 

If Trump knowingly took them and kept them, but once it was discovered fully cooperated, IMO, he should still face the same consequences I would have surely dealt with if I had done the same.

14 minutes ago, GoBlue23 said:

Now you're trying to conflate the documents Biden had in what he said were his personal notebooks and others that were found in boxes when they conducted full searches of his properties to ensure all documents were returned.  

Yes, Biden knew about any documents in the personal notebooks and was of the opinion that he was entitled to have them.  What you're ignoring is that nobody ever came asking for him to return those documents.  Because nobody ever reached out about those documents, Biden never lied about having them, hid them so they wouldn't be found or enlisted others to lie so he could keep them. 

You continue ignoring about 90% of what Trump did in an attempt to equate the two situations when they aren't even close to being the same.  

No, you keep adding all the additional stuff that Trump is guilty off and saying Trump, and all his baggage, don't equate to Biden.  I agree with that.  Always have.  

-Biden told his ghost writer he had classified documents in his home.

-Biden read notes he took of classified documents to his ghost writer and even admitted that it's probably classified.  He can claim he thought he could do that, but I can assure you ignorance is not a defense.

-The ghost writer attempted to delete those notes prior to being investigated.  Circumstantial, but still evidence that even the ghost writer realized he probably shouldn't have them.

If you replace Biden with Trump in this scenario and j'm prosecuting with a jury of 12 motownforum politic thread members, you guys probably wouldn't need to be excused to the jury room to hand down a guilty verdict.

- 

2 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Same here.  There is no wiggle room at all.  

You should stop both sides-ing and just let me take the heat.  🙂

2 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

So Biden "forgot" about the documents while Trump would regularly show them off to every Tom, Richard and Ivan. Lied about having them and tried to obstruct their recovery.

Two wrongs may not make a right but one of the wrongs puts them in the John and Arthur Walker category. That's at least 25 years minimum in my book

Literally no one is arguing that the obstruction that accompanied the initial thing Trump and Biden were guilty of is equivalent.  There is a reason why the Trump indictment has a ton of additional charges related to the obstruction he did.

2 minutes ago, GoBlue23 said:

Calling out the absurdity of you trying to equate Trump with Biden and/or Clinton does not make me a partisan.  

Still not sure why you keep bringing up Clinton and clearly you didn't read my second paragraph again.  I am focusing on one specific issue, the willful retention of classified documents.  I'm not talking J6, Georgia, Trump U, 2 billion Saudi fund, or the obstruction that accompanied the willful retention with Trump only, because Biden didn't obstruct.

The investigation proves Biden willfully kept them and regardless if he forgot about them after or not, it doesn't matter.  If he knew he had them, he should have been working with the appropriate folks to return them. Instead he waited to 'immediately' turn them in 5-6 years later.

I've watched so many of you mock Trump about classified documents sitting in some bathroom in Mar-a-lago and how insane it is to think someone could be so careless.  Yet Biden has them in the garage of a house he doesn't always even stay in and no one blinks an eye, no issue here, carry on or it's both sides-ing.

2 minutes ago, oblong said:

You have to look at someone's job to understand the reason they would have documents.  The higher level you go then the more likely you routinely use classified information.  Therefore the more likely it is you would mistakenly take them home or whatever.  A low level person who accesses a file system and takes home documents they have no business having and gets caught with will receive stricter punishment.

because of my previous job, i've taking tons of training regarding documentation.  I've never heard anything talk about how it's alright to be more lax with the rules the higher up you are.  Instead it's drilled into our head that if any point we're not sure if/how to share information, the support process which will get the right people involved that can confirm how you should handle it.  

1 minute ago, Motown Bombers said:

They are not allowed to retain them forever after they leave office. Biden and Pence returned them voluntarily. Hence why they aren't charged with a crime. Trump did not do that. 

Pence didn't even know he had them, he agreed to have the government come in and review and obtain anything they found.  

Biden had those in his home after he was no longer VP and the report shows he knew about it and even on some he wasn't sure about, instead of confirming first, he shared them with his ghost writer.  Many years later, after someone noticed them at his home, his administration/team did the right thing, made it public, and worked with the government just like Pence did to review and obtain.  

He eventually did the right thing, but stop saying he immediately turned them in once he knew about them.  At best, which Hur stated, he's so old he forgot about them but when reminded, remembered that he did have them after he was no longer VP and did not contact anyone to take care of them.

2 hours ago, GoBlue23 said:

Is Hillary making a claim 3 years after an election the same as claiming the election was stolen before it was even held, refusing to concede, filing bogus lawsuits, pressuring state officials, submitting fake electors, calling your supporters to the Capitol, promising pardons and continuing to spew baseless conspiracy theories 4 years later the same thing? 

Your partisanship is blinding you from what I actually said.  Go back and pretend 1984 wrote my second paragraph and read it again.  If you convince yourself 1984 wrote it, you'd love the response.

1 minute ago, Motown Bombers said:

The reason it wasn't pursued is because Biden did not commit a crime. Neither did Mike Pence. Trump, however, did. Once again I have no idea what you want from us with your both sidesing. 

Feel free to add the confusing face to this, but deep down you all know that if the only one having document issues was Trump, and that investigation found that he told a ghost writer he had classified documents, said he thought some documents might be classified (which they were) and read them to his ghost writer, this forum would have lost it just as much over Trump using classified documents to make money.  But yeah, i'm both sidesing I guess.

3 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Weird how Hur writes in the report Biden has a poor memory but in the transcript he says he has a photographic memory. 

Weird huh, almost like the summary didn't match the report.  I mean, no way politics could have gotten in the way and the reason it wasn't pursued.

10 minutes ago, GoBlue23 said:

The exact words from Hurr's report were posted above and yet you keep creating a false narrative.

Let me guess, you think Trump's actions to overturn the 2020 election and his continued refusal to accept defeat are just fine because Hillary did the same thing, right? 

I just pointed out my issues with Hurr's summary and boy did all the democratic talking heads do the same, in fact Biden rushed out to have a press conference to defend himself. The report itself is damning, including the real reason he chose not to pursue charges.

Trump was not the first to claim an election was stolen, but you obviously don't pay attention to anything I write here if you think i'm fine with Trump.  As i've stated multiple times, I just want the J6 trial, I want Trump found guilty, and I would have no problem if he was hung for what he's done.

5 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Trump has given me no reasons to like him in over 40 years.  I will never say anything good about him.  I will criticize his enemies including Biden, but I don't think Biden comes anywhere close to his level on committing crimes.  

Do other people have to get to his level on crimes in order to be charged with them then?  If that's the new standard, then I'll stop complaining about Biden because he hasn't risen to that standard, but what he did, would have landed me in a ton of trouble as a low level employee government contractor in my previous job.

14 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

A much greater mind and someone who investigated Biden doesn't agree. He's another right-wing wacko too;

"Special counsel Robert Hur concluded in his report that the evidence investigators uncovered falls short of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials."

so...attack the source now.

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/09/1230333392/biden-classified-documents-highlights

 

You mean the source that your side attacked immediately upon the release of the report?  For this type of stuff which you obviously didn't get to in the article you linked

"Mr. Biden's decision to read notes nearly verbatim to [ghostwriter Mark] Zwonitzer that Mr. Biden had just identified as potentially classified cannot be justified. But the evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to share classified information. Mr. Biden told Zwonitzer he was 'not sure' the notebook passage he read was classified. That is enough to create reasonable doubt about whether Mr. Biden acted willfully."

Hur outlines the ways in which a jury may side with Biden and not ultimately convict him for the missteps that the special counsel found.The report says that to a jury, Biden would likely "present himself ... as he did during his interview with our office, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."

Hey Mr Ghost Writer, I think these are classified, let me read them to you verbatim.  Once caught, 'well, I wasn't sure they were classified'.  Laughable, no way would you guys defend a republican that did the same thing.

2 hours ago, Edman85 said:

I feel like this is being distorted/obfuscated and needs to be read in full:

https://www.justice.gov/storage/US-v-Trump-Nauta-De-Oliveira-23-80101.pdf

 

I'm assuming this is directed at me.  Is there anything specific I should be looking for?  In looking at the charges, many are related to the coverup/obstruction which I've said is why Biden and Trump are not the same thing in regards to this issue, but willful retention is something both are guilty of.

9 hours ago, oblong said:

If you looked thoroughly at every VP and POTUS after leaving office you’d probably find classified docs. Scraps of papers can be classified. They over classify. It’s what you do with them and when notified that matters.  It’s not complicated to figure out. 

Absolutely true, but again, you guys are so full of hate on Trump you refuse to criticize any enemy of his.  The Hur investigation found that Biden was aware he had these documents after he had left as VP.  They found that he shared these with his ghost rider for a book he planned to sell to make money.  They even found the ghost rider attempted to delete all of his notes regarding it.  In the end they said he was too old and forgetful and as a result, didn't think they would be able to convict him.  

I'm not saying Trump and Biden in regards to classified docs is exactly the same scenario and one isn't worse than the other, but equally so, you bringing up Pence and comparing that with Biden is equally absurd as there is zero proof or allegations Pence knew about it or used it.  That's quite some both sides-ing right there.