Moscow Mitch McConnell

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thinker_Doer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OMG McConnell didn’t support a Democrat bill he must support Russia!!11!

Or maybe he just doesn’t support massive federal election laws…

The occasion for the assault on McConnell was a naked and cynical political setup. After Robert Mueller’s testimony, Democrats tried to get so-called unanimous consent for election-security bills in the Senate. This procedure is reserved for uncontroversial items that, as you might guess, have unanimous support. While everyone in the Senate agrees we should combat Russian interference, not everyone agrees on how to do it.
One of the Democratic bills would mandate the use of paper ballots as a fail-safe against hacking. This may well be the best practice, but running elections is the responsibility of states and localities, not the federal government. As supporters of state prerogatives, Republicans could be expected to oppose the bill, and sure enough, it got only one Republican vote in the House.

Another bill would require campaigns to report offers of foreign assistance, a superficially appealing idea. Yet, the more comprehensive such a bill is, the more likely it is to sweep up minor and innocent interactions that fall far short of the infamous Trump Tower meeting (that itself came to nothing).
What the case against McConnell comes down to is the usual sophomoric Washington argument that if you don’t want to do this one specific thing, you don’t want to do anything and have the worst possible intentions.
 
He could vote against it. But he’s currently not permitting a vote on it. He gets to decide what the senate votes on.

He deemed it “too partisan”. If it is, then maybe trust the senators to be able to vote on it.
 
I will highlight this again:

This procedure is reserved for uncontroversial items that, as you might guess, have unanimous support.

The bills are not uncontroversial. This is simply a tactic that Democrats are using to try and paint Republicans as “colluders” who don’t want secure elections by asking for unanimous consent on bills they know full well Republicans won’t support because they are a massive federal overreach into state law.
 
OMG McConnell didn’t support a Democrat bill he must support Russia!!11!
Fair point. But does he have a legitimate issue? Are there effective alternatives that he will support?
And BTW, I have the same response when people here go on and 0pon and on about Democrats not supporting humane facilities for detained migrants.
 
So do I. That’s why, as a Christian, I cannot support his bragging about grabbing women’s genitals, his parodies of persons with disabilities, his disrespect for people who have been prisoners of war or who are gold star families, his ego centric and divisive leadership style, etc., etc., etc. I am not willing to give up my moral sense of right and wrong for a couple of Supreme Court justices who may or may not be able to overturn a decision. I value my relationship with God too much to be a Trump or McConnell supporter.
God might not be as fixated with proper manners as that. He might care more about being complicit with killing millions of innocent children. I think I’ll go with that instead of manners.
 
Good trick now that states are funding abortions. Judges have shown that the only solutions are Amendments to the Constitution.
Not all states do. Some states have virtually eliminated Planned Parenthood from the state.
 
With as much commerce as he does. It isn’t a surprise for some companies he owned to file bankruptcy. If you oppose bankruptcy laws, that’s another issue.
To my understanding, his bankruptcies were Chapter 11. In Chapter 11 you pay all your creditors or lose your ownership. Trump didn’t lose his, as far as I know, and later sold the casinos for a profit. And federal judges determine which claims are legitimate and which ones are not.
 
Actually, he did have to sell much of his ownership in order to get more favorable bank rates or discounts on what his corporations owed.
 
For those of us who believe that life begins at birth instead of conception, words referring to fetuses as “people”, or “unborn children” are misused.
Well that just makes you ignorant, or fabulously wrong. Life definitively does not begin at birth and to believe so is to be on the same level as flat earthers.
 
And federal judges determine which claims are legitimate and which ones are not.
At least those which are brought to court. It’s tough to be stiffed such as his contractors when anticipated court costs exceed the bill.
 
Last edited:
Actually, he did have to sell much of his ownership in order to get more favorable bank rates or discounts on what his corporations owed.
That’s part of what business reorganizations are all about. Still, if he kept any of the ownership, all creditors had to be paid whatever the judge said they were actually owed.
 
“Proper Manners”? Gosh you make it sound like Trump is only guilty of not standing up when a lady comes into the room.
A bit more, but not a whole lot. But the contrast here is between even terrible manners and killing children. There’s no choice to that. One cannot possibly defend the latter for the sake of the former.
I think the term “Moscow Mitch” will get as much mileage from Democrats as “Crooked Hillary” did for Republicans.
Wishful thinking, particularly because the former epithet is a total falsehood, while the latter is true.
At least those which are brought to court. It’s tough to be stiffed such as his contractors when anticipated court costs exceed the bill.
You can file your claim for free and have a hearing on it based on your own testimony and documentation. I have done it. The bankruptcy clerk actually sends a claim form to every creditor, with instructions how to do it. Most claims are not even contested, and the debtor can be sanctioned for frivolously opposing a debt that’s clearly owed. Furthermore, in most Chapter 11 cases, the unsecured creditors form a “creditors’ committee” and join together to hire an attorney or attorneys to litigate the truly major issues.

What Chapter 11 is really for (and appears to have been the case with Trump) is to prevent the major creditors, particularly the big secured creditors, from grabbing all the assets and destroying the company as well as depriving the unsecured creditors of payment.
 
Last edited:
You can file your claim for free and have a hearing on it based on your own testimony and documentation.
Sure, if you’re willing to take time from work and can put up with continuances and legal fees. My case took me five years and I ended up with $110. What a win!

You’re making a lot of excuses for Trump but I think there are far better businessmen and Republicans than him. He has no business interfering with free trade and attacking our allies. Not to mention praising himself for the great economy while blaming Powell for it. But he got his judges so he will probably get away with his antics in the end.
 
You actually have no idea whether he’s an adept businessman or not. Your experience with the bankruptcy court is unfortunate. Sounds more like a Chapter 7, though. Typically, those can take longer because the Trustee has to get and cash out some unencumbered assets to sell in order to pay anything to the unsecured creditors. Sometimes that’s a very lengthy process. Trump’s bankruptcies, though, were Chapter 11. The debtor has a limited time in which to file the plan of payment. The proceeds of the business go into a cash/collateral account in the meantime.

One man’s free trade is another’s imperialism. The precise reason why imperialism existed was to impose unfair trade practices that served the home country at the expense of the subject country. When the trade balance is relentless and huge, year after year, as with China, that’s imperialism by China and needs to be rectified.

Canada and Mexico are happy with the new trade agreement negotiated with them. Congress should approve it, but the Dems don’t want Trump to succeed in anything even to the detriment of the country, so they’re dragging their feet on that.

Attacking our allies? Our most steadfast ally is Israel and it was Obama, not Trump who attacked it. As to NATO, he merely demanded that the live up to their agreements. Why is that an attack?

And since I’m not a Republican, I don’t care whether he’s a better Repub than other ones or not.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top