Justin Amash, the Republican congressman who panders to Democrats with Trump Derangement Syndrome, met with fierce opposition by pro-Trump audience members at a town hall in Grand Rapids, Michigan

^{Posted automatically (#44507) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.}

link

RM-Goetbbels 5.3 years ago

Amash was a libertarians dream in republican garb a few years ago. He was a hopeful often compared to Ron Paul, wrongfully imo but, still there was hope.

I never really bought into him, sure he did try to do some good things but along the way he got dirty and during Obama no one would hear of it. This is the problem people, you get on board with these politicians and YOU DON'T WANT TO ADMIT YOU'RE WRONG when they do wrong.

This isn't a "team" sport where you're either with us or against us. You have to call these motherfuckers out each and every fucking time they misstep no matter how many times they appear to be doing good things.

It's YOU people that are the problem.

link

robot7247 5.3 years ago

Exactly like Rubio. Think back to when he splashed onto the scene. He was called Reaganesque or rock star repeatedly.

When I finally got to see him he seemed like the 11th grade class president giving a speech with big words he rarely/never used.

link

RM-Goetbbels 5.3 years ago

Ted Cruz.......the list goes on.

There were two congressmen a couple of years ago I liked somewhat, Trey Gowdy(?) and that guy from Texas who sat on a couple of committees and then quit.

link

Gadsden 5.3 years ago

This is the problem people, you get on board with these politicians and YOU DON'T WANT TO ADMIT YOU'RE WRONG when they do wrong.

You mean like with Trump doing things that are impeachable offenses?

You can't make that kind of statement, then ignore the facts. Like what Amash is saying or not, or think he has a horse in the race with his family having holdings in a Chinese company, it doesn't negate what he's saying.

link

RM-Goetbbels 5.3 years ago

You mean like with Trump doing things that are impeachable offenses?

Sure, I'm open to that idea. I am far far from not being able to criticize trump and do so regularly. That said, the amount of crying wolf about trump committing offenses that are impeachable has been dragged out for far too long and over petty things. (Obama did some shitty shit during his 8 years of terror and you people were silent. Show me where you posed the same question.)

But go ahead, show me incontrovertible facts as to how and what. Oh and show me your exact same position that you applied to Obama.

link

Gadsden 5.3 years ago

I respect your ability to criticize Trump, but don't "you people" me :) . I'd like to "impeach" the entire government, and I've been in that boat for over 20 yrs. But I also won't argue that because X got away with something, it invalidates Y, or Z's doing shit, nor the opposite argument that because X or Y did something, it's okay for Z to do. Obama has nothing to do with whether or not Trump has committed impeachable offenses.

Amash is strictly constitutional. He tweeted:

In fact, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars.

On technical basis alone, I think he's not wrong.

If we are talking about Obama, the difference with shit he did is that he had a buffer between himself and actions done while he was president, so it was a technicality that he couldn't be implicated directly for things like Fast and Furious.

But I still think Amash is technically correct, and I'm not sold on his Chinese connection being much of a conflict of interest in this, because I think he probably knows that impeachment is so unlikely to happen. It's more likely he's just being factual than pipe dreaming that impeachment will happen and tariffs will go away.

link

RM-Goetbbels 5.3 years ago

But I also won't argue that because X got away with something, it invalidates Y, or Z's doing shit, nor the opposite argument that because X or Y did something, it's okay for Z to do.

I was aware of that argument as I typed it but I really didn't give a fuck because I knew what your answer would be. As expected, you glazed over Obama and instead chose to use the argument I knew you would.

someone who actually stands up for the constitution 100% is in the white house.

I've watched the man from the beginning and while I can't quote the specific actions of what happened, I can say, I stopped watching him because he did not "stand up for the Constitution 100%".

You're a liar and my original post stands true, "but along the way he got dirty".