Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
17 minutes ago, daz28 said:

The president was basically saying, that's what you get, as he watched an insurrection on our nation's Capital.  I don't believe that would be considered upholding the Constitution of the USA.

That is not what the President was saying, and I think you know that. The President's point is/was that he believed the election was fraudulent, and that what he knew was about to 'go-down' at the Capitol was the certification of an invalid election.  Prior to that certification, he wanted someone to listen to his concerns.  But once that certification occurred, he has said it is over.  That is not treason.  That is the way our system works.  And, you have better hope the system continues to work that way if and when you are ever arrested.  If not, the police officer will have the right to toss you in jail with no day in court, no argument, no defense, no judge and no jury.  You better hope we never get there....but some of you seem to want it to work that way.

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

That is not what the President was saying, and I think you know that. The President's point is/was that he believed the election was fraudulent, and that what he knew was about to 'go-down' at the Capitol was the certification of an invalid election.  Prior to that certification, he wanted someone to listen to his concerns.  But once that certification occurred, he has said it is over.  That is not treason.  That is the way our system works.  And, you have better hope the system continues to work that way if and when you are ever arrested.  If not, the police officer will have the right to toss you in jail with no day in court, no argument, no defense, no judge and no jury.  You better hope we never get there....but some of you seem to want it to work that way.

So the president is who decides if the election is fraudulent or not????  If he deems it so, then insurrection is "what happens"???? It's ok if a few people die while he decides if he wants to let it continue or not???   You don't have to tell me what he said OR what happened.  I know what happened and I know what he said.   

 

IT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID: "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.”

Edited by daz28
Posted
Just now, daz28 said:

So the president is who decides if the election is fraudulent or not????  If he deems it so, then insurrection is "what happens"???? It's ok if a few people die while he decides if he wants to let it continue or not???   You don't have to tell me what he said OR what happened.  I know what happened and I know what he said.   

But, but ... "many people are saying it was the most fraudulent election in history" and "I won by a landslide." C'mon, "everybody knows" that.  "Everybody knows."

What more do you need?

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

But, but ... "many people are saying it was the most fraudulent election in history" and "I won by a landslide." C'mon, "everybody knows" that.  "Everybody knows."

What more do you need?

Apparently you need some insurrection, and according to Deek, that's how the system works.

 

His communication director today even said they KNEW it wasn't fraudulent.  When the subpeonas start rolling in during impeachment, I'm sure we'll hear it from others too.  Only his cult would believe that 5 states all conspired to defraud the election.  Seriously, snap out of it people.  

Edited by daz28
Posted
4 minutes ago, daz28 said:

So the president is who decides if the election is fraudulent or not????  If he deems it so, then insurrection is "what happens"???? It's ok if a few people die while he decides if he wants to let it continue or not???   You don't have to tell me what he said OR what happened.  I know what happened and I know what he said.   

 

IT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID: "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.”

No, he doesn't, but just like in a court case there are two sides to every case. He obviously believes is was fraudulent. So? Hilary has maintained for four years that the last one was a fraud.  She has continued to say it over and over again.  We will see if Trump follows suit.

Posted
1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Maybe, but on the other hand, you're a case study in accepting a rumor based in a riddle wrapped in speculation as absolute, unquestionable fact.   I've never understood why people would accept as fact something this incendiary without question, blindly loyal (ironically) to a commercial endeavor with a widely acknowledged slant toward reporting stories a certain way.  I rarely see it in any other walk of life, blind loyalty to the rumor and grist mill.  We learned all of this by about 5th grade, yet, here you are.  

 

Far be it from me to suggest that in everyday life, you would be rightly accused of being lead around by the nose without a shred of evidence backing up the claim.  But, tarry on, you can trust everything you read. 

 

My "rumors" logically align with the consistent track record of 1st-hand accounts that assess Trump as being unfit for office.

 

Unlike you or I these come from just about every person who has ever directly served and left one of his cabinet offices or appointments.

 

Mattis

Spencer

Bolton

Kelly

McMaster

Barr

Sims

Manigault-Newman

Cohn

Cobb

Haley

Tillerson 

Farah

Krebs

 

...and the current list of resignations of those who protested Trump's role in fomenting the riot with his lies.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/heres-who-resigned-from-trumps-administration-after-riot-at-the-capitol-11610061311

 

 

Yours is based on... hell, I have no idea what fuels your illogical defense of that creature. It seems like you just parrot what he tweets and the marketing of far-right propaganda outlets.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

No, he doesn't, but just like in a court case there are two sides to every case. He obviously believes is was fraudulent. So? Hilary has maintained for four years that the last one was a fraud.  She has continued to say it over and over again.  We will see if Trump follows suit.

He had no proof to sustain his belief.  IOW, it was either in his demented mind, or he KNEW it wasn't

 

I don't even think Benedict Arnold said anything that harsh about our country

Edited by daz28
Posted
Just now, daz28 said:

He had no proof to sustain his belief.  IOW, it was either in his demented mind, or he KNEW it wasn't

Maybe so, but he still gets a day in court, just like you better hope and pray that you may one day.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

That is not what the President was saying, and I think you know that. The President's point is/was that he believed the election was fraudulent, and that what he knew was about to 'go-down' at the Capitol was the certification of an invalid election.  Prior to that certification, he wanted someone to listen to his concerns.  But once that certification occurred, he has said it is over.  That is not treason.  That is the way our system works.  And, you have better hope the system continues to work that way if and when you are ever arrested.  If not, the police officer will have the right to toss you in jail with no day in court, no argument, no defense, no judge and no jury.  You better hope we never get there....but some of you seem to want it to work that way.

It doesn't matter here, Deek.  The pitchforks are paid for, they can't return the tar, and somebody has to answer.  

Posted
15 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Ok, then  answer me this.  Did Trumps conduct during the coup fit this description?:  Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust".[6] Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself"


Was I defending the president? My point is that your country is ***** and it didn’t start with trump.  He’s just a symptom of a

larger problem. 
 

 

Posted
Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Maybe so, but he still gets a day in court, just like you better hope and pray that you may one day.

It's going to be Chuck Shumers court.  He will be able to call any witness he wants, and this time they go to jail if the don't comply.  How do you think he will do????

1 minute ago, meazza said:


Was I defending the president? My point is that your country is ***** and it didn’t start with trump.  He’s just a symptom of a

larger problem. 
 

 

I was just asking for your opinion, because you said you knew the Constitution well.

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

It doesn't matter here, Deek.  The pitchforks are paid for, they can't return the tar, and somebody has to answer.  

I'm not the judge and jury.  Just a witness to the facts.  He can have his chance to defend himself, which we already know he will refuse.  No written answers.  No kid gloves.  This time it's for reeelz

Posted
1 minute ago, daz28 said:

It's going to be Chuck Shumers court.  He will be able to call any witness he wants, and this time they go to jail if the don't comply.  How do you think he will do????

I was just asking for your opinion, because you said you knew the Constitution well.


I’ll be honest I didn’t read trumps comments but I wouldn’t be surprised if he did say something that could be considered treasonous but this is also the guy who could spell coffee?

Posted
7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

No, he doesn't, but just like in a court case there are two sides to every case. He obviously believes is was fraudulent. So? Hilary has maintained for four years that the last one was a fraud.  She has continued to say it over and over again.  We will see if Trump follows suit.

How many insurrections did Hillary cheer on because of her belief it was fraudulent.  How many times was Hillary president??  

1 minute ago, meazza said:


I’ll be honest I didn’t read trumps comments but I wouldn’t be surprised if he did say something that could be considered treasonous but this is also the guy who could spell coffee?

This is exactly what he said when our nation's Capitol was under a coup by domestic terrorists:  "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.”

Posted
13 minutes ago, meazza said:


Was I defending the president? My point is that your country is ***** and it didn’t start with trump.  He’s just a symptom of a

larger problem. 
 

 

 

Do you deal with symptoms or let them fester until the disease spreads?

Posted
57 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

 

Do you deal with symptoms or let them fester until the disease spreads?


You’ve ignored the symptoms for the last 20 years only focusing on the other side because you think your cause is just.  You’re part of the problem and I mean that in the nicest way possible. 

Posted
1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

That is not what the President was saying, and I think you know that. The President's point is/was that he believed the election was fraudulent, and that what he knew was about to 'go-down' at the Capitol was the certification of an invalid election.  Prior to that certification, he wanted someone to listen to his concerns.  But once that certification occurred, he has said it is over.  That is not treason.  That is the way our system works. 

 

 

I was told it was an elaborate coup!!!!!   

 

Go Horn Headed guy!!!

Posted
2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

And she was carrying a Don't Tread on Me Flag.

Really.

Kinda feel a little bad saying it, but oh well... that is friggin' funny as hell!

What a legacy.

Posted
3 minutes ago, meazza said:


You’ve ignored the symptoms for the last 20 years only focusing on the other side because you think your cause is just.  You’re part of the problem and I mean that in the nicest way possible. 

The emergence of a third party (meaning: a split in the Republican party) may be inevitable. And I think that would be a good thing.

Third parties almost never succeed, but they sometimes are able to drag the major parties back into more sensible positions. That happened in the UK when the Labor Party an Conservative Party had both gone too far in their respective directions. The Social Democratic/Liberal Parties emerged, didn't win a whole lot of elections, but then disappeared when Labor became the party of Tony Blair instead of (real, honest-to-goodness) socialists, and the Tories became the party of, well, a lot of forgettable middle-of-the-road types after the key elements of Thatcher's anti-government agenda had taken root.

A guy named Donald Trump started to run on the Reform Party ticket back in 2000 ... I read that he was "very pro-choice" and, of course, committed to the elimination of federal deficits. I wonder how that worked out. I better google him.

2 minutes ago, Bad Things said:

Kinda feel a little bad saying it, but oh well... that is friggin' funny as hell!

What a legacy.

It is. Can't. Make. This. Shite. Up.

Same with the dude who gave himself a nut-shot with his pocketed taser while trying to steal a portrait of Tip O'Neil (why?), collapsed, and died of a heart attack.

The Trumpian Mount Rushmore.

Posted
2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

The emergence of a third party (meaning: a split in the Republican party) may be inevitable. And I think that would be a good thing.

Third parties almost never succeed, but they sometimes are able to drag the major parties back into more sensible positions. That happened in the UK when the Labor Party an Conservative Party had both gone too far in their respective directions. The Social Democratic/Liberal Parties emerged, didn't win a whole lot of elections, but then disappeared when Labor became the party of Tony Blair instead of (real, honest-to-goodness) socialists, and the Tories became the party of, well, a lot of forgettable middle-of-the-road types after the key elements of Thatcher's anti-government agenda had taken root.

A guy named Donald Trump started to run on the Reform Party ticket back in 2000 ... I read that he was "very pro-choice" and, of course, committed to the elimination of federal deficits. I wonder how that worked out. I better google him.

You'd end up with the Republican, Trumpee, and Democratic parties.  Who do you think would do well?  Hint, it begins with a D

Posted
3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

The emergence of a third party (meaning: a split in the Republican party) may be inevitable. And I think that would be a good thing.

Third parties almost never succeed, but they sometimes are able to drag the major parties back into more sensible positions. That happened in the UK when the Labor Party an Conservative Party had both gone too far in their respective directions. The Social Democratic/Liberal Parties emerged, didn't win a whole lot of elections, but then disappeared when Labor became the party of Tony Blair instead of (real, honest-to-goodness) socialists, and the Tories became the party of, well, a lot of forgettable middle-of-the-road types after the key elements of Thatcher's anti-government agenda had taken root.

A guy named Donald Trump started to run on the Reform Party ticket back in 2000 ... I read that he was "very pro-choice" and, of course, committed to the elimination of federal deficits. I wonder how that worked out. I better google him.


I’ve made the argument over at the other side that a real left wing and real right wing party is needed to reflect the actual demographics of your country.  Right now it’s all pretend.  You have tons of unhappy trump and Bernie supporters.

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

You'd end up with the Republican, Trumpee, and Democratic parties.  Who do you think would do well?  Hint, it begins with a D


Except that the Democrats don’t represent a good part of their base neither.  The same ***** that happened to the republicans will happen to the dems at one point.

 

You can’t keep #### blocking Bernie.

×
×
  • Create New...