Amber

not sure how to be more conservative than the Taliban

specifically: such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (such as retirement income or health-care coverage)

Consider why child sex trafficking happens far less in left wing progressive nations than right wing ultra capitalist ones.

-->@<<<Amber>>>

You clearly haven't watched any of the video segments of the trial against him for it where his attorney played video after video of Democrats using the exact same language he used encouraging American citizens to exercise their 1st Amendment right to protest and address their grievance to the government. In fact, some of the videos used showed some Democrats, like Maxine Waters and Kamala Harris, using far more incendiary language than what Trump used. The level of proven hypocrisy comparing those videos to the innocuous language Trump used. 

I have no idea what other comments you mean.

Those rioters were trying to kill his VP,

and he loved it.

...of his attempt to overthrow the government.

 that trump send a mob to attack the capitol. 

There were clearly ill-intended idiots in the group attending the J6 rally/protest who created the problem egged on by people like Ray Epps and the Capital Police. We've all seen the released video the Democrats tried to keep under the proverbial rug showing protesters being welcomed into the Capital through other doors where there was no violence (there is more than one door to the building) and escorted throughout the building. 

yes, we have all seen footage of capitol police trying to get the protesters to move to less sensitive areas so they could evacuate the members of congress. 

No one has been criminally indicted, charged, and convicted of insurrection. No one. And there is an obvious reason why...there was no insurrection. Period. It was a small riot. Nothing more, nothing less. 

the stated goal of the crowd was to get mike pence not to count the votes.

Rioting to stop democracy is insurrection. 

And a handful of people trying to get into one door by breaking in and another handful of people being let in and escorted by Capital Police simply does NOT equal an "overthrow of the government." CHAZ comes closer to an overthrow of a government than J6. 

if by handful, you meant hundreds, sure. You must have really big hands. And this was a violent attack. Police were injured.

Some later died.

And the stated goal of the crowd was the overthrow of democracy.

-->

@Double_R

Do you think being convicted in a Senate trial goes on your criminal record?

Yes. The historical criminal record.

• Impeachment and conviction by the Senate result in a permanent mark on an individual's public record.
  
• This historical record is accessible to everyone and may have significant implications for the individual's reputation and legacy.
  
• Unlike a conventional criminal record, which may be subject to restrictions on access and use, the historical record of impeachment is widely available and can have enduring consequences.
  
• Impeachment and conviction by the Senate can lead to immediate punishments, such as removal from office and disqualification from holding future federal office, without the possibility of appeal.
  

In essence, impeachment and conviction by the Senate represent a stronger form of accountability and public condemnation compared to a conventional criminal record.

-->

@Greyparrot

So high crimes and misdemeanors are some of those "context" words that don't mean what they seem. Pure fanfiction.

Do you think being convicted in a Senate trial goes on your criminal record?

-->

@Greyparrot

which given that Congress has never legislated a process for this effectively means the 14th amendment doesn't exist. That's a far cry from the ridiculous claim you're making.

Lol, you can't be this ignorant. Congress has a process for it.  The 2020 Congress literally had a trial over it.

That was an impeachment trial genius, which is inherently political. The 14th amendment is a question of law. These are not the same thing.

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

Correct. So when a word is spoken, it's meaning is not determined merely by the typical usage of that one word, but by looking at the words that were used before and after and putting it all together a full picture based off of that... Right?

I think the phrase you're looking for is "complete sentences".

No, that's not even close to anything I've said.

Correct. So (SIC) when a word is spoken, it's (SIC) meaning is not determined merely by the typical usage of that one word, but by looking at the words that were used before and after and putting it all together a full picture based off of that... Right?

Is it your position then that the meaning of words can only be determined by those words spoken before or after it so long as there is no period sepperating (SIC) them?

Failure to stop someone from committing an atrocity is not the same thing as taking part in (by providing the source of motivation for) the carrying out of an atrocity.

Funny, because it seems like your case for participation is failure to prevent.

No, that's not even close to anything I've said for the past few weeks that we've been arguing this, and you know that (assuming you've read a single word of it).

Do you have an actual response on the point? Do you agree? Disagree? Do you have any thoughts?

-->

@Greyparrot

9 SCOTUS Judges and the 2020 Congress disagrees with you. Feel free to incite a rebellion though.

You aren't this stupid, please stop trolling.

They decided that the states couldn't decide this, only Congress - which given that Congress has never legislated a process for this effectively means the 14th amendment doesn't exist. That's a far cry from the ridiculous claim you're making.

Moreover, it's notable that of all the cases in the states where this has actually been adjudicated not one single arbiter has ruled against disqualification on the basis that Trump did not commit insurrection.

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

Dictionaries contain words, not phrases.

Correct. So when a word is spoken, it's meaning is not determined merely by the typical usage of that one word, but by looking at the words that were used before and after and putting it all together a full picture based off of that... Right?

They did prepare for violence, they failed to anticipate the scale of violence and the size of Trump's mob.

but that excuse doesn't work for Trump because?

Because it's a categorically different thing.

Failure to stop someone from committing an atrocity is not the same thing as taking part in (by providing the source of motivation for) the carrying out of an atrocity.

And what makes it far worse then that for Trump is that it was in fact his responsibility to protect the nation, so not only did he encourage the mob to feel empowered to do this, but he used the platform he was entrusted with to do it.

The main criticism I see of the film is bitching that it is inaccurate. It's called artistic license assholes and no nonfiction movie is accurate. Get over it. I don't believe ahit I saw in Titanic. I just think it was entertaining

->

@Swagnarok

not one of the 9 SCOTUS members ruled that Trump did commit insurrection and had to be removed from the ballot.

Because they never even bothered to adjudicate it.

 Section 3 has been adjudicated in multiple legal levels in multiple states and many have in fact ruled that Trump committed insurrection and is therefore barred from holding public office,

not one legal arbiter yet has sided with Trump on the basis that he did not commit insurrection.

The supreme court's decision was essentially that this is Congress's decision,

yet when this very question was put before Congress and their final answer was that it's the court's decision.

The fact that no one wants to make this decision as opposed to just saying "he did not commit insurrection" is amazing. As the saying goes, the silence is deafening.

-->

@<<<Amber>>>

You clearly haven't watched any of the video segments of the trial against him for it where his attorney played video after video of Democrats using the exact same language he used encouraging American citizens to exercise their 1st Amendment right to protest and address their grievance to the government. In fact, some of the videos used showed some Democrats, like Maxine Waters and Kamala Harris, using far more incendiary language than what Trump used. The level of proven hypocrisy comparing those videos to the innocuous language Trump used. 

None of those examples are analogous.

To understand someone's message you have to put their words in context, 

which is why it's no surprise that Trump's mob stormed the Capitol in Trump's name while no one stormed anything in the name of Kamals Harris or Maxine Waters.

To put Trump's words in context consider the following:

• Trump spent months telling his followers that the election (and by extension their voices) had been stolen from them.
  

• He then called on them to come to DC on January 6th saying it "will be wild"
  

• He then gave a speech telling them to "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore"
  

• He then pointed them towards the very building where he alleged their voices were being stolen
  

• He then watched as the entire riot played out from 1:24 till 4:03 until finally getting off of his ass to tell the mob to go home. During this time not a single call was placed by Trump to anyone in the government authorizing any action that could have helped.
  

Q1: if the election was actually being stolen through the legal system, what remedy is left other than violence?

Q2: How do you make your voice heard by people who are in the middle of stealing it, and why would anyone listen to that message?

Q3: How exactly is a peaceful protest "wild"?

Q4: If Trump's intention was not to incite violence, why did it take 3 hours before he decided to tell the crowd to leave the Capitol?

He absolutely tried to overthrow the government. I can't believe that is even in question. 

Another interesting question. A man that is involved with a transgender woman , is that man  a flaming f.......oh...I mean.... is that man gay?

Likewise with the woman. A woman that is involved with a transgender man , is that woman a di...correction, to communicate politically acceptable, is that woman a lesbian ?

-->

@Greyparrot

No way, I mean, how could I possibly challenge such brilliant arguments like "stereotyping keeps the majority safe from the minority", and "blacks are violent and dangerous", I'm just not smart enough to counter that with a sound argument backed by facts.   

Instead of the usual strawmans, how about addressing real arguments. like:

1) Censorship keeps the minority far-left safe from the majority.

2) Blacks are culturally prone to violence and that violence culture is tolerated because any discussion about poor cultural beliefs about black on black crime, riot culture, fatherless families and gangster life is routinely censored to preserve a toxic culture that can't naturally thrive without censorship (strawmanning away the truth) and endless affirmative apologies.(It's those yeehaw MAGAS who dun it!)

All MAGA has is a culture war, no ideas, no capacity to govern, no principles, no plans, just the culture war.  You guys need to defend bigotry and prejudice, because it's all you have, the MAGA Platform is bigotry and prejudice and nothing more.  Take away the people you are against, and there's nothing left, no policies, no ideas, no plans, just outrage at the existence of "others", the bad people.

I always ask, and not a single one of you can tell me why these "others" upset you so much.  I think it's because you don't know why, you just know that's what you are told to do.   

Putin convinced you that Americans are your enemy, and you were stupid enough to believe it, and you don't even know why.

"I always ask, and not a single one of you can tell me why these "others" upset you so much."

 How many times do I have to tell you, you win, you have convinced me that bigotry and prejudice are good, and stereotyping is the best way to think of people.  What do I have to do, start going to your Klan meetings? Sport a mullet, a feed store cap, and a "wife beater" shirt, start living on meth, moonshine, and food stamps?  

Face it, I really do understand MAGA, when you have climbed your way to the bottom rung of society, financially, socially, educationally, intellectually, and morally, you can at least take pride in being white.  If that's all you got, then you just have to go with it, I get that.

White trash is still white, so you go girl, be proud!

You’re clearly not intelligent enough to come back with a sound argument backed by facts. 

No way, I mean, how could I possibly challenge such brilliant arguments like "stereotyping keeps the majority safe from the minority"

, and "blacks are violent and dangerous", I'm just not smart enough to counter that with a sound argument backed by facts.   

Why do you care or not care about someone else's sex life/sexual activity?

-->

@Mall

Provide your arguments and explanation.

Is there necessarily hatred, bigotry, prejudice involved just for speaking against or having a non acceptance of the L.G.B.T.?

Non acceptance of a certain "type" of person is the definition of bigotry and prejudice.

-->

@<<<Amber>>>

Is not Paganism one of those "interests" you wish to engage in?

If it were, I would have started a new discussion on it. ....... there are so many others of greater interest. 

Such as that  pseudoscientific form of healing favoured by Pagans known as Reiki ?

But you have written in your profile :

Religion -  Pagan

And  I was hoping for one of those "general discussions" that you say is one of the reasons that you joined the forum.

Amber wrote:  Wow. I cannot believe I found a pretty decent website that fosters debate, or general discussion with interests. Anyhow, I am a young woman in America who is yearning to get a Bachelors degree in Political Science and I am very curious about broadening my horizons with debate and discussions on same or similar topics. So, I signed up today and thought I could work on that. Any help, advice and direction would be greatly appreciated from the respected members. Thank you, kindly.

https://www.debateart.com/members/Amber

Is not Paganism one of those "interests" you wish to engage in?

so like, elaborate for me how I got this wrong

-->

@<<<Amber>>>

What are the gods of you (sic) professed paganism. Amber?

-->

@<<<Amber>>>

Do you know how few humans have nothing rational in/about them? That's an extreme statement.

-->

@Intelligence_06

Ask a dictator to be honest.

And they would tell you that you can force people to participate.

But you can't make them want to participate.

-->

@<<<Amber>>>

You made a thread about a war on children with sexuality as a primary vein of it, then you pretend people randomly brought those topics up.*

Get help.

Ah yes, gotta hate people who move to USA illegally to find better life.

-->

@<<<Amber>>>

• I've been merely exposed to straight people my entire life without any apparent effect.
  

• Insisting that there will soon be a massive conspiracy to make America gay is classic, kooky, conspiracy theory bullshit.  
  

• I strongly recommend you make yourself a tin-foil hat- you're going to be wanting one soon
  

• Calling LGBTQ people 'evil' "weak" 'intolerant" "violent" "unnatural" and "illegal" in two sentences without assembling any argument is merely hate speech.
  

• And a desperate ploy by the immoral to convince the stupid to vote for the party of racists, rapists, and Russians.  
  

• Fear makes bad public policy.
  

->

@Mall

Is it wrong to insist on the l.g.b.t.?

Particularly to transgenders being that they regret the decisions made .

Yes, it is wrong to insist that someone else be converted into what you want them to be with no regard for what they want themselves to be. Why are we even talking about this?

Everyone makes decisions they later regret, that is not an excuse to advocate for taking that freedom away from others.

Beyond that Don't talk to me until you watch ops documentary. It's ridiculous that I can listen to 10 hours of the lefts best arguments on a weekly basis but you refuse to watch a single 2 hour documentary 

If that's how you want to spend your free time have at it. That has nothing to do with me.

I did watch some of it, take the swimmer story for example. It's a grotesque story, it's also the same story I hear every single time the issue of trans women in woman's sports comes up, so again to my point - just how prevalent is this? Why with all of the things going on is this country is this what you guys are laser focused on? That's what I just can't wrap my head around.

-->

@<<<Amber>>>

By extension of the law governing the parents' legal fiduciary duties to a child until they turn 18. They are legally required to care for them, nurture them, cloth them, and provide for their health and education. They can even be legally held liable for crimes committed by said children. Children are the legal property of their parents. 

Don’t even dignify that bad faith argument with a response. The English language doesn’t have a great word for the parent child relationship. “Property”, “ownership” etc all miss the mark. The closest thing is custody. We have custody of our children, he does not. The onus is on him to prove why his opinions on what’s good for my child should overrule mine 

-->

@thett3

Simple only if you believe that children are parent's property.

This documentary video, done by a producer who has worked with some pretty famous people, has shown how and why this world is turning to shit.

• Strongly disagree.  This video is merely MAGA propoganda (sic) for the weak in mind and spirit.  The producer, director, and principle (sic) actor is a (sic) ex-metalcore videomaker (sic) who ran for Congress last year.  Failed politicians, deep in throes of debt and power denied are predicatably (sic) unreliable journalists.
  

It is the only place I could find to the full video, and yes, it is on X, but that makes no difference.

• Obviously, sources make a difference to serious thinkers and rigourous (sic) truth-seekers. 
  

The documentary is professionally researched and put together. 

• Starbuck told his subjects he was making a documentary called "It Takes a Village."  More than one subject was smart enough to tape their interviews as proof that Starburck edited their answers to his liking and inserted question he never asked to deliberately misrepresent the truth.  
  

Through psychological warfare, or as they call it, the mere-exposure effect western civilization is being destroyed from within. There is a war on Western Civilization,

• That war is in Ukraine and MAGA is now clearly rooting for the fall of Western Civilizatiion.  (sic) 
  

America has never been so divided across so many lines. 

• Objectively false.