Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Trump explicitly floats idea of delaying the election ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
    Claiming no tear gas was used without mentioning that pepper balls were used is misleading...
    It's not misleading at all. Pepper balls are not tear gas, and tear gas is not pepper balls. What's misleading is to claim that they are the exact same thing.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      Actually, it was the makeup to which I was referring. But, for school children in an educational setting, it's just dumb.
      So according to you, trans people reading to kids in a classroom is "just dumb". And why? Because they wear makeup?? These kids have never been exposed to humans wearing makeup??? So if a female teacher is wearing makeup while performing her duties in a classroom that would also be "just dumb", according to your logic.

      It's no outrage at all. Just an observation. I don't know what it is with you kids and the need to always see "outrage" in somebody's reply. It's stupid.
      However, you did use the word "outrageous" in post #123. So you've just admitted that it was stupid on your part to be outrageous by a trans reading a story in a classroom setting.

      EDITED: BTW, I'm 74 years old, and you calling me a "kid" is a great compliment. And my wife just rolled on the carpet laughing when she read your post. Thanks for the entertainment.
      Last edited by little_monkey; 08-04-2020, 06:48 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        These are the same folks who are calling being arrested "kidnapping."
        Yes, they weaponize language to make it sound absolutely horrid, and totally ignore the fact that "peaceful protesters" have not exactly been peaceful.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
          Right. The expression has particular connotations.

          I mean, technically, firing a big jet of compressed air at them would be "gassing" them, but that also would be far from the usual implication of the term, "gassing."
          Well, we assume that everyone here is up to snuff enough and so knows we are talking about tear gas and pepper spray. Apparently we can't even make that assumption because if there's any wiggle room the defenders of the governments actions will take advantage of it.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Yes, they weaponize language to make it sound absolutely horrid, and totally ignore the fact that "peaceful protesters" have not exactly been peaceful.
            If you can control the language, then you win every argument by default.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              Plainly visinble on a video is these agents
              At least you're not calling them stormtroopers.

              taking a man into custody
              so far, so good

              in an unmarked van
              Not at all unusual, especially where undercover work is done, and marked police vehicles have been attacked, set on fire, turned upside down, etc...

              without any sort of announcement as to who they are
              You just said they were agents --- and we know they were federal agents.

              or why they are arrestimg him.
              There is no requirement or need to publicly announce that, and I have previously explained the various nuances of "arrest".
              It appears they removed him from an active protest area to question him at a safer location.
              Safer for themselves and for him.

              It happened, and it fits the description precisely - even though you mock the reality.
              No, Jim, what is being mocked is the distorted reporting of what actually happened.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
                Prove it.

                There are reports of it happening, including eyewitness accounts - something which Christians assert the absolute authority of when it comes to scripture. Why are eyewitness accounts so easily dismissed here, then?
                Like in a court of law, it first must be established whether or not the witness is credible, and has any understanding of relevant processes.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                  Now that I think of it, if the election was delayed then wouldn't the position of POTUS fall to the speaker of the House until a due election could be held, and wouldn't that be Nancy Pelosi?
                  I don't see why that would be - I know of no constitutional provision for passing power "down". It would stand to reason that he would simply remain in his position until relieved.
                  After all, what if the election were delayed (I don't think that's actually possible) and he were reelected?
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    If you can control the language, then you win every argument by default.
                    And you make the language fit the narrative.

                    There is this ONE example that keeps being used over and over to make it sound like this is some horrible standard procedure that is occurring all across the nation.

                    Meanwhile, the "peaceful protesters", the "wall of moms", the "wall of veterans".... the language makes the anarchists look like saints and the law and order look like Gestapo.

                    Why? That's the narrative.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      Well, we assume that everyone here is up to snuff enough and so knows we are talking about tear gas and pepper spray. Apparently we can't even make that assumption because if there's any wiggle room the defenders of the governments actions will take advantage of it.
                      The US has authorized that "wiggle room", Jim.

                      USA Today FactCheck

                      Under the protocol, the United States reserved the right to use riot control agents in cases of controlling rioting prisoners of war, situations where civilian casualties can be avoided. The U.S. could also use it in rescue missions to recover isolated personnel and outside of combat zones to “protect convoys from civil disturbances.”


                      A database by the International Committee of the Red Cross shows the ban of riot control agents in war went into effect in 1997, but still made it legal for law enforcement use. The Senate approved the CWC in a 74-26 vote on April 25, 1997.


                      And, if it's "defenders of the government actions" vs the anarchists who wish to destroy our nation, I'll go with the "government actions" in this case.

                      By the way, Barr (yeah, I know, you think he's a lacky) did an excellent job explaining the situation between interruptions by the incredibly hostile Democrats when they would yell questions at him, not let him answer, make accusations, and even "Take as no" things he said that were nowhere near "no".

                      Myths 5, 6: Barr used tear gas to clear out peaceful protestors for a photo op for Trump.

                      The myth that Trump and Barr are supposedly squashing peaceful protests throughout the country also held top billing at Tuesday’s hearing. One main line of this attack focused on the narrative that Barr had directed the removal of peaceful protestors, including with tear gas, from Lafayette Square in Washington, DC so Trump could walk to St. John’s Church for a photo op.

                      “On the first day of June, the world watched in horror on live television as federal agents deployed by the administration, and with you present and telling him to get it done, used force to clear Lafayette Park so that the president, with you and others at your side, could walk across the park and have a photo op in front of St. John’s church,” one committee member charged. Rep. Pramila Jayapal repeated this claim, saying Barr had directed “federal officers to close in on the protesters and to use shields offensively as weapons, tear gas, pepper balls, irritants, explosive devices, batons and horses to clear the area just so the president could get a photo op.”

                      While Democrats refused to allow Barr to respond to the charges, Republicans provided the attorney general a chance to detail the facts. “There was unprecedented rioting right around the White House,” Barr explained. “Very violent.”

                      “During that time about 90 officers were injured. In fact, the Secret Service was so concerned it recommended the president go down to the shelter,” Barr noted. “There was a breach of the Treasury Department, the lodge—an historical building on Lafayette Park—was burned down, and St. John’s Church was set on fire,” Barr added.

                      On Monday, Barr explained, “there was total consensus that we couldn’t allow that to happen so close to the White House, that kind of rioting,” and “therefore we had to move the perimeter out one block and push it up toward I Street.” This plan had nothing to do with the president’s decision to walk to St. John’s Church, Barr explained.

                      Barr also responded to another falsehood, noting that no tear gas had been used in moving the perimeter. Rather, tear gas was used to clear the way for a fire truck to put out the fire at St. John’s Church the previous evening.

                      To say the protest was peaceful was also not accurate: “It is a fact that the park police reported, and I saw myself projectiles being thrown from that crowd,” Barr explained, “so I did not consider them at all peaceful protesters.”
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        I don't see why that would be - I know of no constitutional provision for passing power "down". It would stand to reason that he would simply remain in his position until relieved.
                        After all, what if the election were delayed (I don't think that's actually possible) and he were reelected?
                        There's a law in the constitution that specifies very clearly when the presidency and vice-presidency of a person terminates, I think it's January 20th or something like that. With the president and vice-president absent it falls to the speaker of the House to act in their place. That's Nancy Pelosi. And if it's not her it'll be a Democratic majority house who'll get to select a temporary president until the election.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by little_monkey View Post
                          So according to you, trans people reading to kids in a classroom is "just dumb".
                          First off, I never assumed it was a "trans person". It simply appears to be a drag queen. Did you check genitals or something?

                          And why? Because they wear makeup?? These kids have never been exposed to humans wearing makeup??? So if a female teacher is wearing makeup while performing her duties in a classroom that would also be "just dumb", according to your logic.
                          If a male teacher were to show up for work wearing that much makeup, he would probably be sent home. It's an unnecessary distraction.

                          However, you did use the word "outrageous" in post #123. So you've just admitted that it was stupid on your part to be outrageous by a trans reading a story in a classroom setting.
                          Your logic isn't very good --- I did, indeed, inadvertently use the word "outrageous" in reference to the makeup, but I'm hard pressed to find a better word for that mess.

                          EDITED: BTW, I'm 74 years old, and you calling me a "kid" is a great compliment.
                          Ah, so it's senility! Thanks for explaining.

                          And my wife just rolled on the carpet laughing when she read your post. Thanks for the entertainment.
                          She literally laid down on the carpet and rolled around? Now THAT might be entertaining..... to somebody else.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            The US has authorized that "wiggle room", Jim.

                            USA Today FactCheck

                            Under the protocol, the United States reserved the right to use riot control agents in cases of controlling rioting prisoners of war, situations where civilian casualties can be avoided. The U.S. could also use it in rescue missions to recover isolated personnel and outside of combat zones to “protect convoys from civil disturbances.”


                            A database by the International Committee of the Red Cross shows the ban of riot control agents in war went into effect in 1997, but still made it legal for law enforcement use. The Senate approved the CWC in a 74-26 vote on April 25, 1997.


                            And, if it's "defenders of the government actions" vs the anarchists who wish to destroy our nation, I'll go with the "government actions" in this case.

                            By the way, Barr (yeah, I know, you think he's a lacky) did an excellent job explaining the situation between interruptions by the incredibly hostile Democrats when they would yell questions at him, not let him answer, make accusations, and even "Take as no" things he said that were nowhere near "no".

                            Myths 5, 6: Barr used tear gas to clear out peaceful protestors for a photo op for Trump.

                            The myth that Trump and Barr are supposedly squashing peaceful protests throughout the country also held top billing at Tuesday’s hearing. One main line of this attack focused on the narrative that Barr had directed the removal of peaceful protestors, including with tear gas, from Lafayette Square in Washington, DC so Trump could walk to St. John’s Church for a photo op.

                            “On the first day of June, the world watched in horror on live television as federal agents deployed by the administration, and with you present and telling him to get it done, used force to clear Lafayette Park so that the president, with you and others at your side, could walk across the park and have a photo op in front of St. John’s church,” one committee member charged. Rep. Pramila Jayapal repeated this claim, saying Barr had directed “federal officers to close in on the protesters and to use shields offensively as weapons, tear gas, pepper balls, irritants, explosive devices, batons and horses to clear the area just so the president could get a photo op.”

                            While Democrats refused to allow Barr to respond to the charges, Republicans provided the attorney general a chance to detail the facts. “There was unprecedented rioting right around the White House,” Barr explained. “Very violent.”

                            “During that time about 90 officers were injured. In fact, the Secret Service was so concerned it recommended the president go down to the shelter,” Barr noted. “There was a breach of the Treasury Department, the lodge—an historical building on Lafayette Park—was burned down, and St. John’s Church was set on fire,” Barr added.

                            On Monday, Barr explained, “there was total consensus that we couldn’t allow that to happen so close to the White House, that kind of rioting,” and “therefore we had to move the perimeter out one block and push it up toward I Street.” This plan had nothing to do with the president’s decision to walk to St. John’s Church, Barr explained.

                            Barr also responded to another falsehood, noting that no tear gas had been used in moving the perimeter. Rather, tear gas was used to clear the way for a fire truck to put out the fire at St. John’s Church the previous evening.

                            To say the protest was peaceful was also not accurate: “It is a fact that the park police reported, and I saw myself projectiles being thrown from that crowd,” Barr explained, “so I did not consider them at all peaceful protesters.”
                            Why was the crowd cleared immediately before the photo op is what I want to know. And apparently the justification has now shifted from a curfew shift, to a firetruck having to pass. I think we should get a disinterested investigation of these events. Even if it is as he says, the president utilizing this for a cheesy photo op just sends a horribly bad signal that I'm honestly surprised Republicans are shocked about.

                            I don't condone violence.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                              There's a law in the constitution that specifies very clearly when the presidency and vice-presidency of a person terminates, I think it's January 20th or something like that.
                              Yes, and the date for federal elections is also "set". If it were to be moved, it would stand to reason that those things that it affects should also move.

                              With the president and vice-president absent it falls to the speaker of the House to act in their place. That's Nancy Pelosi. And if it's not her it'll be a Democratic majority house who'll get to select a temporary president until the election.
                              I don't see that.

                              The National Task Force on Election Crises, a cross-partisan group of election law and security experts, released a statement pointing to pushback from Trump’s own political allies and noting that the premise of the question of succession is flawed because the election will not be delayed to begin with:
                              It’s critical in the Task Force’s view that the public understand that we will have an election on November 3rd, and that the president has no authority whatsoever to either change that date or to extend his term past noon on January 20th. The statute dealing w/ presidential succession is there for extraordinary circumstances, but even getting into that gives credence to the premise that we might not have an election — which we don’t want to do. There is bipartisan agreement on this point on Capitol Hill, as well, with Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and others insisting that the general election not be delayed.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                Yes, and the date for federal elections is also "set". If it were to be moved, it would stand to reason that those things that it affects should also move.
                                True, you can just amend the constitution if you have enough support.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X