Isn't it TDS when people defend name callers?

I didn’t make a judgment on Barrett’s credentials. If Covita had nominated Matt Goethe or Louie Gohmert the Senate would confirm him, though Collins would have concerns.
Perhaps Olbermann was being sarcastic, humorous or you just misunderstand him.
Like Covita and the standard defense
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But when Joe Biden tells a roomful of blacks that Mitt Romney (Mitt Romney!) "wants to put y'all back in chains", that's not dishonest, vile or scummy. That's OK. But when Trump does it, it's bad.

When Hilary says that Trump supporters are deplorable and irredeemable, that wasn't vile or scummy either.

There you go again Jim trying to make comparison that don't exist

1 insult is equal to 1000 insults how do you convince yourself of such nonsense

Trump has insulted people thousands of times - Biden or Hillary not so much.

Even though she was probably thinking of the Repubs. who lied about Obama's religion and birth Clinton apologized the next day.


Edit - or what wdmso said.

So it's OK for you to call someone scummy because you didn't do it thousands of times?

sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. but I tend to let people slide when comparing that person to someone who does that sort of thing thousands of times.

So name calling is OK if it isn't done thousands of times. I haven't counted, but I don't think anyone on the political forum in the past 10 years has name called thousands of times.

I have no possible way to deny that Trump insults more often. Obviously that's correct. So a president is allowed a certain number of insults before he's unfit, and by an amazing outcome, Biden and Hilary are below that number, Trump is above. Funny how that always works.

Similarly, it was OK when Obama put kids in cages, but Trump does it too often. Again, the maximum allowable number, coincidentally and not because of politics, is more than Obama did, but less than Trump.

whatever

The difference bt when Obama did it and Trump has been explained to you many times.

"would you treat one of your sons the same way when he says something for the first time vs if he repeatedly does that egregious thing over and over?"

I happily concede that doing something once, and doing it constantly, are different. I didn't dispute that.

My observation, and I m correct, is that there a long string of negative behavior that most politicians engage in. It's funny that for each negative behavior, Obama/Biden/Hilary all engage in that behavior below the acceptable maximum number of times allowed, and Trump is always over the maximum. Like putting kids in cages. Right? No one gave a crap when Obama did it, no one even noticed. But when Trump does it, it's monstrous.

As I said, I'm sure that's all just a coincidence and not a moving of the goalposts.

"The difference bt when Obama did it and Trump has been explained to you many times. "

Right. Trump did it too many times. But I don't recall seeing a threshold as to how many times you could do it, before it was problematic. But that threshold, again, was higher than the number of times Obama did it, and below the number of times Trump did it.

It's funny how none of these things are any kind of an issue until Trump came along.

That is the key

bill clinton is still
worshipped on the left. is he a much better person han trump?

they’re very different, as clinton is the poster boy of an oily smooth politician, and trump is the opposite.

but the reason i support trump, is because for 8 years when clinton was president, democrats said personal conduct didn’t matter, what mattered was results. i agree with that when evaluating a president. i still do. democrats have flip flopped, and all of a sudden character matters. i wish we could
set the tules, and leave them
in place regardless of party. that goes for both sides.

clinton was disbarred. when lawyers decide you’re too sleazy to associate with, that’s an accomplishment.

i don’t feel inclined to get a lecture about ethics from anyone who supports bill clinton. you can’t have it both ways.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Didn't Bill Clinton say he was sorry and take ownership? Trump hasn't owned anything.

Yes, Bill is a far better person than Trump.

it is not having it both ways it is you trying to make a case for one of the worse people anywhere.

Clinton is a far better person because he said he was sorry? All will take for Trump is to say he is sorry?

About the Access Hollywood tape, Trump said:
"I’m not proud of it. I apologize to my family. I apologize to the American people. Certainly I’m not proud of it." And "I was wrong and I apologize."

Good for him for saying that. Did he ever later try to walk that back?

Let him say he is sorry for the thousands of lies, thousands of insults, etc. and I'll no longer say Clinton is a far better person than Trump.

Oh good lord. So if Trump apologized, that would be good enough for you? THAT'S what you're saying?

Yes it is having it both ways. Unethical behavior is only a problem for all of you, when it comes from the right. In some case it's the same exact behavior - no complaints when the left does it, horror when the right does it. Infidelity, putting kids in cages, nominating judges in an election year...how many examples would you like?

Trump said sorry but some question the sincerity and supposedly he later questioned if it was him on the tape.

I don't believe either one. But if they said they were sorry, then they met the original criteria for your absolution. Of course, if you keep putting add-ons and stipulations, you can finally figure a way to make their apologies different and make Trump worse.

On to Pennsylvania

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJQZ7yG7Tdg

"I have no problem w/nominating judges in an election year - it is the not bringing them up for a vote that I find scummy"

Oh my God, do you know what the 'Biden rule' is which the republicans relied in when denying the vote?

BIDEN HIMSELF, when Bush was president, said famously that if a president nominates a SCOTUS candidate in an election year, that the senate should refuse a hearing. Biden said that, they call it the Biden Rule!!

So, unless you have no principles, that must mean you think that Biden is scummy.

You really shot yourself in the foot there.

Can't wait to hear your explanation as to why it was OK for Biden to suggest blocking a vote during an election year!

so if a president apologizes, you forgive him. Unless "some" doubt the sincerity of the apology, in which case you don't forgive them.

And it's just a coincidence that none of those "some" doubted the sincerity of Bill Clinton's apologies, because he just reeks of sincerity.

he already did. In Trumps case "some" doubted the sincerity of his apology, and that was good enough to ignore the apology and declare Trump worse. I guess the "some" who say Clinton wasn't sincere, aren't as credible as the "some" who determined that Trump isn't sincere. Because that's an exact science.

because Biden was trying to convince people not to do something versus the Republicans who actually refused to do what they were supposed to do, It was much later in the election year and there was no SC vacancy. He was saying they should wait until after the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not getting why you are stuck on what Biden or the Republicans said. The Constitution doesn't rely on their versions or when they said their versions or who said what first or who was scummier. What the Republicans are doing is constitutional. I think a "period! End of story." after that would be called for.

Why is it that writings written in a professional capacity on a specific issue aren’t relevant or instructive to how that person will execute their job, but private personal texts are THE SMOKING GUN for the intention and state of mind of how others did theirs?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, because if that is how it is in politically driven hearings, then that is how it is.

Sen. Hawkeye to Barrett: "I'm surprised that the Democrats haven't criticized you about your religion today. So let ME go ahead and bring up your religion now and make it an issue."
That's 7 Trumplican Senators that have mentioned her faith repeatedly over two days, and not a word from the D's.
He has nothing else to bring to the table. Just another guy using the GOP playbook of dividing the country through religion, race, and culture. They have absolutely nothing else to run on. Just look at the past 4 years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device