monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You have absolutely no idea what radical leftist ideas are if you think anything democrats have proposed is radical.

Wrong.

Abolishing the filibuster is radical.

Packing the Supreme Court is radical.

Violating people's civil liberties for no reason is radical.

And the moderates will not allow the Democrats to do any of it.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

history indicates no such progression. that's purely your own warped predilections, not what actually happens.

Wrong again. Nixon/Carter/Reagan. It really is futile of you to deny history.

Mr. Carter was weak and ineffective in the aftermath of Mr. Nixon's lynching. And after Mr. Carter's single term came a strong Republican.

Mr. Biden is going to be weak and ineffective in the aftermath of Mr. Trump's lynching. And after his single term will come a strong Republican (probably Mr. Trump for his second term).

0 Replies

PEOPLE: PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE DAMN TROLL. YOUR ENDLESS, FRUITLESS EXCHANGES WITH HIM ARE WHAT HE FEEDS ON LIKE A DAMN VAMPIRE. JUST STOP.

1 Reply

There are videos of the DC Metro Police opening the gates to the rioters. High-fiving them. Taking selfies with them.
As they desecrated OUR CAPITOL. Marched the confederate battle flag through the halls of Congress. Vandalized the Speaker’s office. Climbed walls; broke and climbed through windows.

If no one raises this and looks into it...
Well, I just don’t know.

This scene today was deeply unsettling.

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

the damn troll

Progressives sure do hate people who post facts and reality.

I'm glad you don't have the power to "disappear" me like you guys did when your hero Stalin was in charge.

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

This scene today was deeply unsettling.

Progressives sure don't like it when people stand up to them.

Get used to it. The American people plan to resist and undermine the Biden Administration until they finally impeach Mr. Biden and vote him out of office.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

For you oralloy - to claim that discussion of honest behaviours is backwards - is one of the most self serving pieces of nonsense I have ever heard you say.

Your behavior is not consistent with the way that I think honest people act. Therefore you are guilty.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

ROFLOLOL...I bet you aren't prepared to explain that nonsense either...but hey, if you do, try to make it more than a substanceless slogan...an actual explanation with logic, example, or comparison would be good...

...but the real reason for your post - you can't find anything wrong with how I attribute honesty, and so you must find another form of diversion from your inability to articulate & explain how Trumps behaviour was honest / explain how it wasn't dishonest & corrupt.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

You continue to behave differently from how I think honest people would act. You must be guilty of many atrocities.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

ROFL...I thought I'd get yet another evasive response like that.

Seriously though - as you bring up how honest/dishonest people would behave - provide an example of how my behaviour would be if it was honest

1 Reply

@vikorr,

There is nothing evasive about my response.

An example of honest behavior would be if you didn't make false accusations.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

There is nothing evasive about my response.

You have now avoided explaining how you think Trump was not being dishonest and corrupt for several pages, despite being asked over & over. That is the very definition of evasive. You keep coming up with excuses that keep changing (as to why you won't explain)...which is a common thread in evading answering questions.

Quote:

An example of honest behavior would be if you didn't make false accusations.

We both agree on that. You will have to be more specific.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Basically what we currently have is:

Me:
- me aproviding each behaviour example, and and explaining why invidivudally they were honest / corrupt
- me proiding examples of honest behaviours for comparison (having explained their dishonesty/corruption, and I showed legitimate honest behaviours for comparison)
- me showing you how I arrived at those examples (by explaining honesty)

You
- make statements without explanation (just 'I disagree' and 'he believed it')
- address no individual example from that phone call
- try your best to ignore any comparison to honest behaviour
- refuse to explain your position (beyond 'he believed it', which is by itself meaningless, as I explained, and you were unable to refute)
- refuse to discuss it any further with excuse after excuse

I say it is because you know outright any attempt by you would show just how dishonest & corrupt that call was.

All the rest of your posts have been just continual desperate evasive nonsense perpetrated by a person unable to explain or justify their position (that Trump was neither dishonest nor corrupt in that phone call)

1 Reply

@vikorr,

You really were born in the wrong century. Your backwards thinking is appalling. Do you regret not being allowed to burn innocent women for witchcraft?

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

You have now avoided explaining how you think Trump was not being dishonest and corrupt for several pages, despite being asked over & over. That is the very definition of evasive.

Wrong. Choosing to not address a subject (had I chosen thusly) is not being evasive.

And wrong again. I did explain why I think he isn't being dishonest.

vikorr wrote:

You keep coming up with excuses that keep changing (as to why you won't explain)...which is a common thread in evading answering questions.

Wrong again. I did not change anything.

vikorr wrote:

We both agree on that. You will have to be more specific.

You asked how your behavior would be different if you were actually being honest. I answered your question.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Wrong. Choosing to not address a subject (had I chosen thusly) is not being evasive.

No. But be honest and say "I won't answer that question". Instead you make excuse after excuse to avoid answering it. That is evasive.

Quote:

And wrong again. I did explain why I think he isn't being dishonest.

Nope, you gave a statement that you refuse to engage in discussion on. That is not explanation. That is essentially the same as sloganism - you allow no openning for testing the honesty or validity of your statement.

Quote:

You asked how your behavior would be different if you were actually honest. I answered your question.

With vagueness...avoiding any specific example...which I suspected from the start you would likely do, hence the ROFL.

Seriously, your claim was you always justify your position. If you meant 'I always justify my position - in this case only with sloganistic or vague statments and no further explanation' then that at least would have been honest.

See the difference? I provide specific, explain my claims, and don't avoid challenges. You provide vagueness, don't explain, and avoid challenges.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

You're not behaving the way that I think an honest person would behave. Just how many crimes have you committed anyway?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

All that this because your boy Trump was caught trying to rig an election...and you don't like it, and can't bring yourself to honestly think about it, or talk about it.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

All that this because your boy Trump was caught trying to rig an election

How did you come to that conclusion? The incumbent president received ten million more votes than he received in 2016, and was clearly in front in the four states where the "fix" was put in, in the wee small hours.

Anyone with more than a couple of firing synapses could tell you that creepy Joe Biden was never going to get more votes than Obama, which, by some "miracle" of math, he achieved.

For the American voting public to actively protest this obvious distortion of the election process, is entirely natural and expected.

1 Reply

25TH AMENDMENT DISCUSSED AMONG TRUMP ALLIES, CABINET, ADDRESSING PRESIDENT'S FITNESS TO SERVE: ABC NEWS

Quote:

Some members of President Donald Trump's Cabinet have discussed invoking the 25th Amendment after a mob of the president's supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol Wednesday, ABC News reports.

Multiple sources told ABC News that there have been discussions between some Cabinet members and allies about using the amendment as a vehicle to remove the president from office. It was not clear how extensive those conversations have been, or if Vice President Mike Pence supports such action, according to ABC News.

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which was enacted after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1967, provides a process for the involuntary removal of a president from power. It has never been tested.

If the vice president and a majority "principal officers of the executive departments" were to decide Trump is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," they could send a written declaration to Congress and install the vice president as acting president.

There are 15 executive departments -- so, it would take Vice President Mike Pence and eight federal department heads to agree to go forward. The 15 are: Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, and Justice.

What constitutes being "unable to discharge powers/duties" is not spelled out and is open to interpretation.

If the president were to challenge his removal, the amendment stipulates that Congress must vote within 21 days to uphold the removal, requiring two-thirds vote in both chambers. If the vote fails, the president remains in office.

https://abc7ny.com/politics/25th-amendment-discussed-among-trump-allies-cabinet/9420150/

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know