Join AARP in Celebration of Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month. Nominate Someone for the AAPI Hero Award

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 25,146
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: US Institutions Under Assault From Trump

Message 11 of 89 (80 Views)

umbarch64 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

umbarch64 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

 Two thoughts:

1) Conservatives are not monolithic like those of the left who line up and follow the Party line without question;

2) A "radical" defined as what?

3) "authority belongs to the people" - and the people spoke last November, let it go.


That's three by my count, but OK...one more time.

 

1.  True...."Conservatives are not monolithic".  Not true.... that the left is.  You either know that's not true and say it anyway OR you don't know that's not true despite all the evidence available to you.   Neither alternative casts you in a favorable light. 

By nature the left is more "communal" while the right is more "individualistic.

 

Irrelevant.  Neither Conservatives nor the 'left' are monolithic. That is the "Truth".   "Communal" or "individualistic have nothing whatsoever to do with that "Truth".  You disasemble.

 

Try to understand, it is not the light I am in that is at issue, it is the truth that is the point.

 

Oh, I understand your side-shuffle two-step quite well.  However it is you who dissemble and bury whatever truth you may have to offer in disingenuous monologue.  You have made yourself into an "issue" all by yourself.  "Truth" is indeed the point. It would be refreshing to see something resembling the "Whole Truth" from you...at least on occasion.

 

2.  I wrote out a salient definition for both conservative and radical multiple times before.  The full definition is written on paper, bound into a book that is published and sold at Barnes & Noble...very likely at your public library as well.  It is widely used as an authority for legislative and legal matters where precise definitions are important. I use it as well.  I can't do much more to enlighten you.

A trip to the books store of to the Kindle store is not needed - google is available. And it contains no definition that applies to we on the right. 

 

Ah, but it obviously is needed.  I do not accept 'google' or 'wiki' of any sort as an authority worthy to 'hang my hat on'.  So...if you want to 'discuss', you do it by rules I accept ahead of time.  You can't change them after that either.  Funny, I seem to recall having said that to you before...have you forgotten?

 

3.  You say, "the people spoke last November.  NOT ENTIRELY TRUE...the Electoral College spoke....their vote did NOT constitute the consensus of the entire citizenry. I know you know that. 

Well, there is that pesky thing (to the radical left) called the Constitution. Based on it - the people spoke last November. 

 

Your problem, not mine, is on public display once more.  You could easily have kept the discussion out of the partisan arena by simply dealing with the differences between the popular vote and the electoral vote.  It does appear you can't or won't help yourself.  In either case, you are the one making the choice and you are the only one who can change that behavior.

 

You say, "let it go".  That implies something in regard to me and my motivation. Just so you really do know if you don't know by now, I don't 'quit' and I don't  'let go' when the well-being of my Nation is not being well served. I look at things the way they are, not what you or anyone else says they are.  Could be my training, could be it's just the way I am.  No matter...your gratuitous advice is rejected. 

 

I understand that it takes a bit of maturity to let it go when things don't go one's way.

 

You understand nothing.  Using pejoratives as ammunition to demean and insult is childish.  Especially when it is not necessary. 

 

I also understand that it takes a degree of maturity to understand that one's opinion of best for the nation is not necessarily shared by the entire population and that is why we have elections.

 

You understand nothing. An Electoral College vote AND a Majority vote only establish the outcome of those elections.  In the end, the Constitution places restraints on the eventual consequences resulting from either...that is as it should be.

 

And that maturity then says, "let it go" and the individual moves on to the next opportunity to have his or her way.

 

Yeah, well...there he goes again with the insult bit. 

 

Read carefully.  One cannot 'let it go' if there is a clear and present danger to the Nation's survival...that would mean acquiescene to that Nation's demise.  Can't do that.  No patriot could. 

 

The 'tyranny of the majority' was viewed by many of the founding fathers as a significant threat to the Republic.  So was the installation of an absolute authority such as a King, or a Monarch, or a autocratic demagogue such as 'the donald'.  I trust you 'understand' that they really did do the best they could to prevent either from happening.  It is now up to us to 'carry on'.  

 

In this case, 2020.

 

You are wrong once more.  The next opportunity is 2018.  At that time it will be possible to restore legislative restraint to supplement restraint based on what the Constitution will and will not allow to happen....provided the Judiciary is not wholly corrupted in the meantime. 


 


1) Elections are conducted based on the Constitution (for now).

2) Try to relate all that two-step jazz to the topic and get back to me

3) Are you saying that until I show a sales slip from a book store before we can discuss whether some definition ("radical") applies only to the right? 

4) Then the immature rants about not wanting to be mature.

5) And so on and so on with the personal stuff.


 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 25,146
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: US Institutions Under Assault From Trump

Message 12 of 89 (78 Views)

pc6063 wrote:

RK--RE: looking at info. without the prism of bias--

When do you plan to start??

 

Bringing up Hillary is a diversion, you have learned the Republican playbook well.  

 

Too bad it's fraudulent--but, once you remove that prism of bias--you'll see.


Hillary is not a diversion. Being that it was so recent and Comey was involved in both.  The comparison of the events is certainly valid since we are really talking politics here.

 

Now what was fraudulent? Did she not set up a private server for what reason? Did she not have erased emails under subpoena? Did her involved staff not refuse to testify even after being given immunity and were permitted to erase their emails? Did classified stuff not show up on Weiner's laptop? Did Comey not say that she was guilty but he didn't think she meant to break the law so she would not be prosecuted? Did her husband not meet with the AJ a day or so before the decision was made?

 

Try to deal with my thoughts - not the "Republican playbook" - I play from my own book.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 25,146
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: US Institutions Under Assault From Trump

Message 13 of 89 (76 Views)

rker321 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:


Trump did the "marches", "demonstrations", riots, harassment by the MSM, constant stream of allegations from "unnamed sources" all by himself???


Am I wrong in interpreting that you are blaming "demostration, riots, and harassment as the reasons as to why a Special Investigator has been named? if all of those sources are unamed and obsubstantiated  why would anyone pay attention to them? 
Special prosecutors are named when things have gotten to the point that they need impartial investigation. such as the Russian collusion. and the Comey firing and whether that was an obstruction of Justice committed by Trump when and if he asked Comey to lay off the Flynn investigation. 
Please,!!!!  riots? they don't have the status of having a special investigation.  is not very difficult to become at leas for today,  objective.


Yes, your interpretation is wrong.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 988
Registered: ‎02-12-2011

Re: US Institutions Under Assault From Trump

Message 14 of 89 (84 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

umbarch64 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

 Two thoughts:

1) Conservatives are not monolithic like those of the left who line up and follow the Party line without question;

2) A "radical" defined as what?

3) "authority belongs to the people" - and the people spoke last November, let it go.


That's three by my count, but OK...one more time.

 

1.  True...."Conservatives are not monolithic".  Not true.... that the left is.  You either know that's not true and say it anyway OR you don't know that's not true despite all the evidence available to you.   Neither alternative casts you in a favorable light. 

By nature the left is more "communal" while the right is more "individualistic.

 

Irrelevant.  Neither Conservatives nor the 'left' are monolithic. That is the "Truth".   "Communal" or "individualistic have nothing whatsoever to do with that "Truth".  You disasemble.

 

Try to understand, it is not the light I am in that is at issue, it is the truth that is the point.

 

Oh, I understand your side-shuffle two-step quite well.  However it is you who dissemble and bury whatever truth you may have to offer in disingenuous monologue.  You have made yourself into an "issue" all by yourself.  "Truth" is indeed the point. It would be refreshing to see something resembling the "Whole Truth" from you...at least on occasion.

 

2.  I wrote out a salient definition for both conservative and radical multiple times before.  The full definition is written on paper, bound into a book that is published and sold at Barnes & Noble...very likely at your public library as well.  It is widely used as an authority for legislative and legal matters where precise definitions are important. I use it as well.  I can't do much more to enlighten you.

A trip to the books store of to the Kindle store is not needed - google is available. And it contains no definition that applies to we on the right. 

 

Ah, but it obviously is needed.  I do not accept 'google' or 'wiki' of any sort as an authority worthy to 'hang my hat on'.  So...if you want to 'discuss', you do it by rules I accept ahead of time.  You can't change them after that either.  Funny, I seem to recall having said that to you before...have you forgotten?

 

3.  You say, "the people spoke last November.  NOT ENTIRELY TRUE...the Electoral College spoke....their vote did NOT constitute the consensus of the entire citizenry. I know you know that. 

Well, there is that pesky thing (to the radical left) called the Constitution. Based on it - the people spoke last November. 

 

Your problem, not mine, is on public display once more.  You could easily have kept the discussion out of the partisan arena by simply dealing with the differences between the popular vote and the electoral vote.  It does appear you can't or won't help yourself.  In either case, you are the one making the choice and you are the only one who can change that behavior.

 

You say, "let it go".  That implies something in regard to me and my motivation. Just so you really do know if you don't know by now, I don't 'quit' and I don't  'let go' when the well-being of my Nation is not being well served. I look at things the way they are, not what you or anyone else says they are.  Could be my training, could be it's just the way I am.  No matter...your gratuitous advice is rejected. 

 

I understand that it takes a bit of maturity to let it go when things don't go one's way.

 

You understand nothing.  Using pejoratives as ammunition to demean and insult is childish.  Especially when it is not necessary. 

 

I also understand that it takes a degree of maturity to understand that one's opinion of best for the nation is not necessarily shared by the entire population and that is why we have elections.

 

You understand nothing. An Electoral College vote AND a Majority vote only establish the outcome of those elections.  In the end, the Constitution places restraints on the eventual consequences resulting from either...that is as it should be.

 

And that maturity then says, "let it go" and the individual moves on to the next opportunity to have his or her way.

 

Yeah, well...there he goes again with the insult bit. 

 

Read carefully.  One cannot 'let it go' if there is a clear and present danger to the Nation's survival...that would mean acquiescene to that Nation's demise.  Can't do that.  No patriot could. 

 

The 'tyranny of the majority' was viewed by many of the founding fathers as a significant threat to the Republic.  So was the installation of an absolute authority such as a King, or a Monarch, or a autocratic demagogue such as 'the donald'.  I trust you 'understand' that they really did do the best they could to prevent either from happening.  It is now up to us to 'carry on'.  

 

In this case, 2020.

 

You are wrong once more.  The next opportunity is 2018.  At that time it will be possible to restore legislative restraint to supplement restraint based on what the Constitution will and will not allow to happen....provided the Judiciary is not wholly corrupted in the meantime. 


 


 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 3,042
Registered: ‎01-24-2014

Re: US Institutions Under Assault From Trump

[ Edited ]
Message 15 of 89 (91 Views)

RK--RE: looking at info. without the prism of bias--

When do you plan to start??

 

Bringing up Hillary is a diversion, you have learned the Republican playbook well.  

 

Too bad it's fraudulent--but, once you remove that prism of bias--you'll see.


politics, cats, kids, and dogs!!
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,065
Registered: ‎03-04-2009

Re: US Institutions Under Assault From Trump

Message 16 of 89 (94 Views)

rk9152 wrote:


Trump did the "marches", "demonstrations", riots, harassment by the MSM, constant stream of allegations from "unnamed sources" all by himself???


Am I wrong in interpreting that you are blaming "demostration, riots, and harassment as the reasons as to why a Special Investigator has been named? if all of those sources are unamed and obsubstantiated  why would anyone pay attention to them? 
Special prosecutors are named when things have gotten to the point that they need impartial investigation. such as the Russian collusion. and the Comey firing and whether that was an obstruction of Justice committed by Trump when and if he asked Comey to lay off the Flynn investigation. 
Please,!!!!  riots? they don't have the status of having a special investigation.  is not very difficult to become at leas for today,  objective.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 25,146
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: US Institutions Under Assault From Trump

Message 17 of 89 (91 Views)

CriticalThinking wrote:

Trump Lovers are putting forth a logically flawed and irrelevant argument in their feeble attempt to defend their hero at all costs. What's happening now is not about the election, it's about a complex series of events which are threatening our democracy. 

 

Let's examine the facts.

  • Donald Trump hired a campaign manager who is a FOREIGN AGENT.
  • Donald Trump chose a FOREIGN AGENT (someone who's working for a foreign government) to be the National Security Advisor. (Personal Opinion: Unbelievable!)
  • Donald Trump demanded the Director of the FBI pledge loyalty to him instead of the Constitution.
  • Donald Trump asked the Director of the FBI to stop an investigation of his National Security Advisor, the FOREIGN AGENT mentioned above.
  • When the Director of the FBI refused to pledge loyality to Trump or to stop the investigation of the National Security Advisor, TRUMP FIRED HIM.

Now, both Democrats and Republicans are working together to conduct an Independent Investigation of the events. They hired former FBI Director Mueller to head this investigation. 

 

How could anyone possibly believe this is an attempt to overturn the election when faced with all of the facts listed above?


"A foreign agent' is a bit deceptive - intentionally no doubt. It merely means a private citizen or firm that has fulfilled the law by stating that they are contracted to do some work for a government. Building a bridge would qualify, PR work would qualify.

 

So the use of the term seems like an intentional effort to deceive.

 

How could anyone possibly believe this is an attempt to overturn the election when faced with all of the facts listed above?

 

First of all, there are no facts listed above. Secondly, President Trump was elected to carry out an agenda. All this disruption and now calls for impeachment can be nothing but an effort to overturn an election.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 25,146
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: US Institutions Under Assault From Trump

Message 18 of 89 (88 Views)

rker321 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:


"Atrocities" and "aforestated atrocities" - a bit of hyperbole there. Even the NYT whose every word is accepted as legal evidence in any court in the land (right??) hasn't gone that far.

 

Besides the manufactured scandal du jour, he's doing a pretty good job as President, isn't he?


so, there are some that think that the NYT is the gospel and there are others that think that Limbaugh  is also the gospel. What is the difference between them?
Manufactured scandal. ?  Gee, you are funny.  yea that manufactured scandal has proven that apparently there is a lot to be answered. As far as doing a good job, as we have all seen, he hasn't done a thing as of yet.


I have seen it posted that if the NYT writes it, it is gospel - can you cite a similar post about Limbaugh? In fact can you even cite a single post where anyone to the right of Che Guevara even mentions his name??

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 25,146
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: US Institutions Under Assault From Trump

Message 19 of 89 (87 Views)

rker321 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:


Not a partisan issue??? Of course it is. To those so consumed by hatred of our President, it is impossible to see this for what it is.

 

The Dems lost, the Dems are trying to cut their losses by shackling the President. After all we do have "The Resistance" - that is a Dem tool.


Rk, blaming the Democrats for what Trump has done all by himself.  We are a nation of Laws, we are following the Constitution.. If a special investigator has been requested.It will take that investigation where it will take that investigation. This is not a partisan issue. not now, not any more. The Democrats have a lot to do before the 2018 elections. Don't try to blame the Democrats for the obvious mistakes of this Administration. Now is the time for the Republican party to really cut their loses. 


Trump did the "marches", "demonstrations", riots, harassment by the MSM, constant stream of allegations from "unnamed sources" all by himself???

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 25,146
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: US Institutions Under Assault From Trump

Message 20 of 89 (82 Views)

umbarch64 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

 Two thoughts:

1) Conservatives are not monolithic like those of the left who line up and follow the Party line without question;

2) A "radical" defined as what?

3) "authority belongs to the people" - and the people spoke last November, let it go.


That's three by my count, but OK...one more time.

 

1.  True...."Conservatives are not monolithic".  Not true.... that the left is.  You either know that's not true and say it anyway OR you don't know that's not true despite all the evidence available to you.   Neither alternative casts you in a favorable light. 

By nature the left is more "communal" while the right is more "individualistic. Try to understand, it is not the light I am in that is at issue, it is the truth that is the point.

 

2.  I wrote out a salient definition for both conservative and radical multiple times before.  The full definition is written on paper, bound into a book that is published and sold at Barnes & Noble...very likely at your public library as well.  It is widely used as an authority for legislative and legal matters where precise definitions are important. I use it as well.  I can't do much more to enlighten you.

A trip to the books store of to the Kindle store is not needed - google is available. And it contains no definition that applies to we on the right.

 

3.  You say, "the people spoke last November.  NOT ENTIRELY TRUE...the Electoral College spoke....their vote did NOT constitute the consensus of the entire citizenry. I know you know that. 

Well, there is that pesky thing (to the radical left) called the Constitution. Based on it - the people spoke last November.

 

You say, "let it go".  That implies something in regard to me and my motivation. Just so you really do know if you don't know by now, I don't 'quit' and I don't  'let go' when the well-being of my Nation is not being well served. I look at things the way they are, not what you or anyone else says they are.  Could be my training, could be it's just the way I am.  No matter...your gratuitous advice is rejected. 

 

I understand that it takes a bit of maturity to let it go when things don't go one's way. I also understand that it takes a degree of maturity to understand that one's opinion of best for the nation is not necessarily shared by the entire population and that is why we have elections. And that maturity then says, "let it go" and the individual moves on to the next opportunity to have his or her way. In this case, 2020.