Who here thinks they are better suited to be Attorney General more than Attorney General Garland?

[William769]

Thats what I thought. Carry on with your woe is me.

[Joinfortmill]

1. 👍

[Aviation Pro]

2. Not me

Carry on Mr. Attorney General.

[Gore1FL]

3. And who can use logical fallacies better than the OP? Nt

[William769]

5. ...

[Doc Sportello]

42. Got anything besides emojis?

Some of us can think critically about government officials. Emojis and "think you can do better?" aren't really lines of reasoning or factual positions.

[William769]

58. They do get the point across though.

[Mr.Bill]

63. Rarely to never.

[Celerity]

17. +1. Beat me to it. Appeal to authority ones I especially dislike.

[Recycle_Guru]

66. not a logical fallacy. by whiningabout Garlands actions you are making the argument

your opinion and ideas about the cases and politics are superior to Garland's

[Gore1FL]

74. I am not sure how "you" refers to in your statement.

But yes, the OP is a logical fallacy.

[Marius25]

4. This rhetoric isn't helpful.

There are plenty of valid criticisms against Garland.

[William769]

7. You're right this rhetoric isn't helpful

but not the way you're thinking.

[Sky Jewels]

16. Yep.

I don't understand the overwhelming push to excuse his inaction, reticence and delay in pursuing coup plotters that we see on DU.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

56. I gotta say,

you are funny.

Now, carry on.

[Skittles]

21. thank you

it is ridiculous

[lamp_shade]

6. Thank you.

[LuckyCharms]

8. Point well taken. In fact, I was thinking about this earlier.

We are just people on the internet.

And we only know what is reported to us.

Whatever is actually going on with mr. trump is so large, that we only see a small percentage of the actual facts.

Journalists as well only know a small percentage of facts.

You either trust the DOJ to do their job correctly, or you don't.

I happen to trust the DOJ, and I have from the beginning.

I'm sometimes guilty of doing otherwise though when expressing opinions on other situations.

Random Joe's on the internet, myself included, are like drunks sitting at a bar going on a rant about some bullshit they are only half informed about.

[William769]

10. ...

[LakeArenal]

30. Bingo.

“Random Joe's on the internet, myself included, are like drunks sitting at a bar going on a rant about some bullshit they are only half informed about.“

Over 1100 insurrectionists have been charged and they collect others as the find them.

That’s not nothing.

[LuckyCharms]

35. True. That's very significant.

It seems to me that MOST of the "worst of the worst" took time out of their lives to actually show up at the Capitol to fulfill their murderous fantasies.

Garland swept them up first, and perhaps that was his strategy all along.

[msfiddlestix]

44. People on the Internet don't count as American citizens, or People for that matter.

[LuckyCharms]

53. Gee, sorry you feel that way.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

62. Good to know you don't count and aren't an American citizen

Now I can treat your opinions with the respect they deserve...

[msfiddlestix]

75. I am in reality very much a U.S. Citizen and a real person.

Apparently the point of the response went past you.

[Ritabert]

9. It should have been Sally Yates

[msfiddlestix]

45. ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ n/t

[Sneederbunk]

67. Or Doug Jones

[mcar]

11. Kick for reality

[RockRaven]

12. One need not be a professional chef w/ Michelin-starred restaurants to know when

one has been served a lousy meal.

One need not be an NBA All-star to recognize when a basketball player bricks a free throw.

Shortcomings in experts' performance are readily recognized by lay people all of the time, in a wide variety of different fields.

Defending Garland with this weak ass line of rhetoric probably does more harm than good.

[republianmushroom]

14. agree

[William769]

15. I stand by the OP

You call it rhetoric, I call it reality.

[inthewind21]

23. Everything

you just mentioned requires only a visual (the basketball reference, which by the way how the game is played is kept confidential or secret) or a personal preference/taste on what a crappy meal is. I think seafood is a crappy meal, all those people in in Joes Crab shack disagree. Now, tell us what your qualifications are and level of clearance is that you "readily recognize" the shortcomings of the DOJ. I'll wait.

[RockRaven]

26. You clearly missed the point by demanding my qualifications/clearance.

[comradebillyboy]

39. Right you are!

[Marius25]

13. I would do a better job that's for sure.

For starters, I wouldn't have ignored tons of Trump crimes, nor have waited 2 years to attempt to hold him accountable.

I also would have appointed a special counsel to investigate Jared and Ivanka's crimes.

[William769]

20. Heres the phone number to the White House [phone]

I suggest you call them & let them know you are much more qualified than Attorney General Garland and would like to be nominated. Please let us know what they say.

[Orrex]

40. Subject line edited to avoid a TOS violation

I wish I could say that this pettiness is surprising, beneath you, or out of character.

[LakeArenal]

50. Talk about calling out.

So you are the authority on the purpose of the thread.

[LakeArenal]

55. As are you. Predictably so.

Garland has charged 1100 insurrectionists.


That’s something I am happy to cheerlead

[Orrex]

60. Irrelevant to the point at hand

I guess it’s great that 1100 mostly anonymous insurrectionists have been charged mostly with minor crimes and received mostly middling sentences.

But that’s not the point I’m addressing. I’m calling out a petty bully, and rightly so.

You’re defending a petty bully, and predictably so.


There is no value in further interaction with you.

[LakeArenal]

68. Thank gawd.

[dem4decades]

18. Such a bogus argument, Numerous high profile law experts have complained about

Garland's pace to begin the investigations into the masterminds of the Jan 6th coup, do you want to try and belittle them too?

[William769]

22. I'll belittle the petty.

That is all.

[inthewind21]

46. Doesn't need one

He's just needs eyes to see above and below him.

[msfiddlestix]

47. ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ n/t

[underpants]

19. He's doing a fine job.

[Cha]

24. Mahalo, William.. It helped me..

[William769]

27. I miss our late night chats.

[Cha]

38. So glad you're back.. we'll

have to have more.

[Frasier Balzov]

25. Personally, I'd rather be better than Clarence Thomas on SCOTUS.

MUCH LOWER BAR.

[William769]

28. ...

[stuck in the middle]

29. I've had an ass for a lawyer and a fool for a client, many, many times.

Last edited Fri Aug 11, 2023, 04:00 PM - Edit history (1)

So I can sympathize with both tfg and Lauro.

[Cheezoholic]

31. His actions as AG so far have convinced me of one thing for sure

he would've/could be an excellent Supreme Court Justice IMO

[William769]

34. Great point.

[Orrex]

36. Who here thinks that the OP is flame bait?

What exactly is the deal with you cheerleaders? Isn’t it enough to have your Garland faith justified at long last?

Why do you need to mock and call out other DUers?

[LakeArenal]

41. Really? And the threads calling Garland a weak ass do-nothing is not bait to those who support him?

It’s a discussion space with obviously strong opinions both ways.

1100 insurrectionists found and charged is not nothing. And I defend Garland’s work.

[Orrex]

49. The OP is calling out DUers

Those who called out Garland for his pacing were calling out Garland.

If you fail to see the difference, then you’re failing to see it on purpose.

[Bucky]

71. It's the internet; we're all baiters.

But, despite the fact that I mostly support Garland, I think it's bullshit to say DUers can't gripe about his apparent slow pace because they can't do better than him. They're disagreeing with Garland's policies, which is fair game. The OP is disagreeing with people for having the temerity to criticize Garland, which is an anti-free-speech argument. Different animals.

In a democracy, you're supposed to gripe when things aren't going your way. That's the whole point of popular government: keep our leaders on their toes and responsive to the voters' demands. If you don't get that, you're not a good democrat.

[LakeArenal]

72. Not saying they should. Already said a discussion board is for discussing.

[inthewind21]

48. Well

We could ask the same. What exactly is the deal with you Garland haters? Isn't the FACT that our faith in Garland has been justified?

[Orrex]

51. Oh please

The OP is calling out DUers. I’ve had posts hidden for calling Garland’s cheerleaders cheerleaders, but ol’ 769 gets a pass because… Why, exactly?

Garland is a public figure who doesn’t give a fuck what people on DU have to say.

Do you seriously not see the difference?

[William769]

54. If you think I am calling out DUER'S, you are free to alert.

I am only responding to what they say. You don't see the difference.

Have a good evening or is that calling you out for having a good evening.

[msfiddlestix]

43. Me.

so there.

ffs

[edhopper]

59. Mitch McConnell is much more qualified

To be Senate Majority leader than me.

Ron DeSantis is more qualified to be governor.

So I guess I can't criticize them either.

That is all, carry on.

[we can do it]

61. Thank you.

[Recycle_Guru]

64. oh!!! I can! I stayed in a Holiday Inn 2 nights this week

plus I don't clutter my mind with useless case law. I just shoot from the hip.

[Chautauquas]

65. Don't need qualifications to have and express opinions

I'm glad there were criticisms, and counter-arguments, of Garland because they presented different views on a very important topic. The only thing about the discussions regarding Garland that bothered me was how petty and nasty some people were, like they just couldn't handle anyone thinking about the topic in a way that differed from their own.

[William769]

69. Yep I saw that on both sides and I a man enough to admit guilty as charged.

Other people not so much.

[Bucky]

70. "If you're not qualified for the office, you're not allowed to criticize the office holder"

You live in a democratic republic, William. Everyone is allowed to criticize office holders. It's expected of a citizen to assess and dissent. You don't have to think you can do better. You're arguing that if I can't do surgery, I can't complain that my doctor did a bad job.

That's not how it works.

[Silent3]

73. Ridiculous way to state the issue

I'm not qualified to skate in the Olympics, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize when someone slips and wipes out on the ice.

Whether Garland's handling of Trump and 1/6 is the moral equivalent of wiping out on the ice is an entirely different matter from the bogus premise of your challenge, i.e. that you must be capable of doing someone's job in order to have a valid complaint about how that person does their job.