Total posts: 8,696
Posted in:
--> @oromagiLet me guess... the pandemic? You know, the one Trump didn’t give a rats ass about for the past year but is now all of a sudden his supporters think should be the president’s number one priority?Right because that's why Biden got booed at the Superbowl for demanding America to be afraid for the .13% at-risk Americans that died while the 95 percenters without connections got the shit stick with neverending arbitrary lockdowns as Washington DC had a 2-year silence for those people.Let me guess, you're one of those 5 percenters.This isn't about Trump. Trump won't ever be allowed by the state-run media to participate in politics ever again. This is about setting an example for the next Trump knowing there just might be some unintended consequence when Washington DC ignores 95% of Americans.
At the request of moderation, I am not at liberty to respond to Greyparrot because of Greyparrot's phony accusation of bullying on Nov 3rd. We can know for certain that Greyparrot bears false witness for exclusively tactical reasons because Greyparrot regularly responds to my posts, my forums, invites me to play games etc. which is not the action of a DARTer who fears harm, just a DARTer who fears contradiction. Greyparrot asked moderation to enforce a safe space for his opinion which he now employs as a comfortable sniper's nest from which to contradict me.
Every DARTer who believes in free speech should be offended by Greyparrot's lies told to achieve an advantage that eludes him intellectually. All DARTers should pressure Greyparrot to rescind his falsehoods and unblock me in favor of honest rhetorical engagement. Until he does so, I would encourage all DARTers to ignore Greyparrot's contributions as tainted by false dealing and unsportsmanlike conduct.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
--> @oromagiNo, we do not agree. The opening statement of H-Res 24 names Trump, President of the United States.” As of the start of trial, which Pelostomy delayed, again, unnecessarily, he is no longer the President. So, the trial is a sham.
Trump was President when H-Res 24 was written on Jan 11 and was President when the resolution passed on Jan 13. The Republican led Senate decided to delay the trial until after Trump was removed from office, thereby removing the option of the Chief Justice presiding.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
-> @fauxlawThe contextual understanding of 19th century English syntax is that "shall have the power" indicates that power may be used, but is not mandatory.Okay... cool. My question was what person or group argues that it is mandatory? Your OP implies that some or all progressives do so I asked for examples.
See my POST #10- fauxlaw is arguing against crazy progressives like Antonin Scalia, the USFG, SCOTUS, Black's Law Dictionary, and most precedent in English language law.
Notice how Constitutional textualists (just like Biblical literalists) always say they want the intrinsic meaning but always mean they'll only settle for most favorable interpretation to the present need.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
--> @oromagiWho's "radical interpretation?"
Yours
POST#16
Eight Senate convictions. Granted. Which of those eight was the President, deserving of having the Chief Justice preside? The requirement is exclusive for the President, yeah?
POST#2
The President is not being tried, so there should be no trial.
We agree that the President is not being tried so the Chief Justice may not preside, that is Senate President Pro Tempore job as it always has been in all past prior convictions.
Saying that the absence of the Chief Justice delegitimizes the trial is anti-precedent, anti-Conservative, and anti-Constitutional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Pelosi was asked on Sept. 20th if she would consider impeachment as a tactic to block the upcoming Supreme Court nomination. Pelosi responded:
"Well, we have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I'm not about to discuss right now. But the fact is we have a big challenge in our country. This president has threatened to not even accept the results of the election, so right now, our main goal ... would be to protect the integrity of the election as we protect the American people from the coronavirus."
Since Pelosi did not resort to mob violence or indeed any illegal or unconstitutional method to block the Supreme Court nomination (in spite of the majority of Americans feeling strongly that such nomination should wait until after the election as indeed every Republican strongly believed only 5 years ago when Garland was nominated 10 month before the election but Republican principles are soft and fragile things, entirely subject to the exigencies of their king), we can conclude that Nancy's arrows were metaphorical references to parliamentary tactics only. Once a Democrat runs out of legal options, a Democrat moves on because Democrats are loyal Americans. Once a Republican runs out of legal options these days, the illegal and disloyal options are brought to table.
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Trump's impeachment is Congress removing the primary source of disability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
--> @fauxlaw @Greyparrot“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”Still having a hard time figuring out which one of these Trump is.
The USFG definition of civil officer includes "all officers of the United States who hold their appointments under the national government, whether their duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments; of the government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy."
Former President is a well defined Federal Office of the United States with a salary, a physical Federal office, a Federal staff, and significant rights and privileges. Trump's Federal job description mandates that he not be convicted of any impeachable offense to retain that office.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
--> @FLRWThe Constitution requires that “when the President is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside...”The President is not being tried, so there should be no trial.
But in every single Senate trial in which the impeached was not the President of the United States, the Senate President Pro Tempore has always presided. fauxlaw's radical re-interpretation here would overthrow all precedent and make all 8 Senate convictions unconstitutional for the sake of Trump.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Further: "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside..."If you insist, as above in my #1, that "shall have the power" means compelled to use power, must the Chief Justice preside in a Senate trial, or there is no trial?Consistency is a necessary component of interpretation, or did you think the Founders were that sloppy in cafeteria-style interpretation?
Unfortunately for your argument, the President of the United States is not on trial. Would you argue textually that "former Presidents" is necessarily and compulsorily implied in every Constitutional use of the term "President of the United States." Obviously not, or every ex-President would also be Commander-in-Chief of the military. Or would you argue that only in Article II, section 3 should "President of the United States" also mean "Former Presidents of the United States?"
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Does the above phrase from Article I say that the Senate is compelled to use that power,
Famously ambiguous- one of the oldest fights in US law. American lawyers have been fighting over the proper interpretation of shall for 200 years but fauxlaw wants us to think that any contradiction is Progressive hypocrisy. I am quite confident that the tenants of Progressivism are entirely silent on the subject of US Constitutional interpretation.
Joe Kimble:
“Shall” has three strikes against it.
- First, lawyers regularly misuse it to mean something other than “has a duty to.” It has become so corrupted by misuse that it has no firm meaning.
- Second—and related to the first—it breeds litigation. There are 76 pages in “Words and Phrases” (a legal reference) that summarize hundreds of cases interpreting “shall.”
- Third, nobody uses “shall” in common speech. It’s one more example of unnecessary lawyer talk. Nobody says, “You shall finish the project in a week.”
For all these reasons, “must” is a better choice, and the change has already started to take place. The new Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, for instance, use “must,” not “shall.”
Bryan Garner:
“Shall” isn’t plain English. . . But legal drafters use “shall” incessantly. They learn it by osmosis in law school, and the lesson is fortified in law practice.
Ask a drafter what “shall” means, and you’ll hear that it’s a mandatory word—opposed to the permissive “may”. Although this isn’t a lie, it’s a gross inaccuracy. . . Often, it’s true, “shall” is mandatory. . . Yet the word frequently bears other meanings—sometimes even masquerading as a synonym of “may”. . . In just about every jurisdiction, courts have held that “shall” can mean not just “must” and “may”, but also “will” and “is”. Increasingly, official drafting bodies are recognizing the problem. . .Many . . drafters have adopted the “shall-less” style. . . You should do the same.
Wikipedia:
the U.S. government advises against using the word shall for three reasons:
- it lacks a single clear meaning,
- it causes litigation, and
- it is nearly absent from ordinary speech.
The legal reference Words and Phrases dedicates 76 pages to summarizing hundreds of lawsuits that centered around the meaning of the word shall. When referencing a legal or technical requirement, Words and Phrases instead favors must while reserving should for recommendations
Antonin Scalia, in his 2007 Textualist manual, "Reading Law" concluded that whenever the word "shall" can reasonably be understood as mandatory, it ought to be taken that way.
Indeed, SCOTUS ruled as recently as 2007 that
(“[T]he mandatory ‘shall’ . . . normally creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion”); Association of Civil Technicians v. FLRA, 22 F. 3d 1150, 1153 (CADC 1994) (“The word ‘shall’ generally indicates a command that admits of no discretion on the part of the person instructed to carry out the directive”); Black’s Law Dictionary 1375 (6th ed. 1990) (“As used in statutes … this word is generally imperative or mandatory”). Neither respondents nor the Ninth Circuit has ever disputed that Arizona satisfied each of these nine criteria. See 420 F. 3d, at 963, n. 11; Brief for Respondents 19, n. 8.
The traditional, Conservative, and Textualist readers of the US Constitution all agree that the Senate is so compelled.
even in a case for which that body has original jurisdiction?
Let's call this legal dodginess on fauxlaw's part. fauxlaw knows that the Senate alone has original jurisdiction over every impeachment imposed by the House. fauxlaw wants to create the appearance of legal alternatives where none exists.
Let's be sure to note that fauxlaw edited the US Constitution here, living up to the promise of his username.
US Constitution:
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."
fauxlaw:
""...the Senate shall have the power to try all impeachments..."
If you agree, why do you also agree that the Supreme Court, also in a case of original jurisdiction, was not compelled to hear a case before it?
Because Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution (establishing the Judiciary) never says that any court, including the Supreme Court are compelled to hear every case petitioned within their jurisdiction, including original jurisdictions. The Article grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction over foreign States, for example, but the Supreme Court has historically rejected almost every foreign petition brought before them.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Arguing that "must have jurisdiction" means the same thing as "must hear every case brought before that juridiction" is Tucker Carlson trumpcuckism intended for folks who can't be bothered to look up the definition of jurisdiction, with no serious application to American law.
Voilà, the contradiction of the progressive so-called mind.
PROGRESSIVISM is the philosophy that "advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition, progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from uncivilized conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society. Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread across the world from Europe."
Most anybody worth listening to is of a Progressive mind and while the US Constitution is one of the finest artifacts of the Age of Enlightenment, there's nothing inherently Progressive about textual readings like Scalia's.
Or has even Scalia now been remonstrated by fauxlaw to the left of any new Trumpist necessity? ...another RINO's hippie dippie misinterpretation of the Constitution's true meaning, which is as always subject to the Trumpist's present need.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
“This impeachment is unconstitutional”
The President of the United States lost an election but wanted to hold on to office anyway. He used the power of his office to manufacture false claims and myriad legal impediments to the just transfer of power during a time of profound fiscal and health emergency. Failing in every effort to overturn the result, the President raised an army against his own parliament at the the constitutionally mandated hour of certification and interrupted that requisite act of the constitution by force.
The Founding Fathers anticipated the anti-American aspirations of tyrants and demagogues in the highest offices of our nations and offered impeachment as a constitutional remedy. If Trump were not impeached for leading an army against the will and authority of the American people then the act of impeachment itself would be proved insufficient to protect American interests and the development of some new instrument justified.
“The president didn’t incite an insurrection”
The army assembled at the time and place tweeted by Trump. The time and place itself establishes treasonous intent- any legal influence on the Senators' and Vice President's decisions would necessarily require a call to action well before the hour of the vote. The president personally interceded in the rally's planning to require the army to march against the Senate at the moment of confirmation, in perfect contradiction against his sacred oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
Trump was notified on Nov. 10th by his most trusted advisors that there was no voter fraud of any magnitude sufficient to change the election outcome in any state. At that moment, Trump understood that there was no legal or constitutional avenue to preserving his power and Trump quite deliberately chose the illegal and anti-constitutional path to power in violation and direct contradiction of his oath. Every declaration after Nov. 10th that the election was rigged, that Trump had actually won or that Biden was illegitimate was and will always remain incitements to insurrection against the safety and preservation of the United States. Trump incited insurrection hundreds of times on live television, in tweets, in Fox News interviews for 8 weeks, culminating in the moment Trump pointed at the US Capitol and said:
“We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal. …
“You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can’t let that happen. These are the facts that you won’t hear from the fake news media. It’s all part of the suppression effort. They don’t want to talk about it. They don’t want to talk about it. …
“We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
“But look at what the democrats said”
There is no Democratic party equivalent to Trump's insurrection since the Civil War.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
--> @oromagiSaying and doing something are two different things. He wanted a Muslim ban, but he can’t do it because it’s unconstitutional.
So we agree that anybody who might call Trump's executive order a Muslim Ban would do so because the guy in your profile pic wanted it to be called that, wanted his ban to be thought of as a Muslim Ban, and would have made an all Muslim Ban if the US Constitution did not protect our religious liberty from the likes of Trump. Why are you lol'ing Intel for calling it by the very name the people who promoted that ban wanted it to called?
Created:
Posted in:
Trusting expertise and telling the truth should also prove useful policies in bringing an end to Trump's pandemic.
WashPo:
Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has stated that, had the guidelines been implemented earlier, a crucial period in the exponential spread of the virus would have been mitigated and American lives saved. Leading epidemiologists have put a finer point on this, estimating that 50 to 80 percent of covid-19 deaths in New York and approximately 90 percent of all American covid-19 deaths can now be attributed to the administration’s delay between March 2 and 16.
The US had the worst pandemic response of any govt. 4% of the World's population suffered 25% of total infections.
A government watchdog study from a generally staid audit agency amounts to a wide-reaching condemnation of President Donald Trump’s botched response to the coronavirus pandemic.The 346-page Government Accountability Office document, much longer than most, outlines broad Trump administration failures so alarming that the normally circumspect auditors pronounced themselves “deeply troubled.” That constitutes an anguished cry from an office that prides itself on just-the-facts, albeit dull, reports.Almost 90 percent — 27 of 31 — of the GAO’s recommendations from June, September and November “remained unimplemented” as of Jan. 15, less than a week before Trump left office. The document was released last week.“GAO remains deeply troubled that agencies have not acted on recommendations to more fully address critical gaps in the medical supply chain,” it said.The medical supply chain covers a large range of actions and materials related to the pandemic, including coronavirus testing, vaccines, therapeutics and personal protective equipment. Even dollars have supply chain issues.The report focused largely on the Department of Health and Human Services, which leads the government’s response. But the GAO’s comprehensive review included covid program integrity issues involving overpayments worth $1.1 billion in the Labor Department’s Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program and 3,000 Small Business Administration loans to potentially ineligible companies.The supply chain of money also has knots. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act provided $300 million to the Commerce Department in March for assistance to the fishery industry, which has taken a financial hit because the pandemic closed restaurants. As of Dec. 4, only $53.9 million — about 18 percent — had been disbursed, which is “inconsistent with Office of Management and Budget guidance on the importance of agencies distributing CARES Act funds in an expedient manner,” according to the GAO.After the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed success in promoting rapid development of coronavirus vaccines — the one bright spot in its covid response — it failed to fully follow the GAO’s implementation recommendations. Now we suffer a rocky inoculation rollout, with jammed websites, clogged phone lines and canceled appointments.“In September 2020, GAO stressed the importance of having a plan that focused on coordination and communication and recommended that HHS, with the support of the Defense Department, establish a time frame for documenting and sharing a national plan for distributing and administering COVID-19 vaccine, and among other things, outline an approach for how efforts would be coordinated across federal agencies and nonfederal entities,” the GAO said. “To date, this recommendation has not been fully implemented. GAO reiterates the importance of doing so.”Trump’s HHS did not agree or disagree with the GAO’s recommendation.The report details a bungled Trump administration response to a virus that has killed over 455,000 Americans, far more than in any other nation. Former HHS Secretary Alex Azar and a spokesperson for Trump did not respond to requests for comment. Neither did current HHS officials.Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.) did. He chairs the government operations subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee, which was one of the congressional panels that received the GAO report. “This independent report is a stunning indictment of the Trump administration’s total failure to respond to the coronavirus pandemic,” Connolly said. “Their inaction resulted in lives lost.”When asked about the GAO report, the White House pointed to the national covid-19 strategy that President Biden released on his second day in office. Among other things, it outlines plans for national testing, supply chain strengthening and vaccine distribution and inoculation.Regarding troubles with the government’s response to covid under Trump, the GAO said:
- HHS “has not issued a comprehensive and publicly available national testing strategy.”
- HHS has not developed a supply chain strategy with states and the private sector for providing supplies during a pandemic.
- The federal government cannot “systematically define and ensure the collection of standardized data across the relevant federal agencies . . . to help respond to COVID-19, communicate the status of the pandemic with citizens, or prepare for future pandemics. As a result, COVID-19 information that is collected and reported by states and other entities to the federal government is often incomplete and inconsistent.”
HHS did agree to take steps toward a national coronavirus testing strategy, the GAO reported, but department officials “expressed concern that producing such a strategy . . . could be overly burdensome” on federal, state and local officials “and that a plan would be outdated by the time it was finalized.” The GAO rejected those excuses.The GAO’s conclusions are not faultfinding after the fact. In February 2020, before things got bad, “we emphasized the need for federal agencies to coordinate, establish, and define roles and responsibilities among those responding to the crisis, and provide clear, consistent communication,” the report said.The bottom line of the report is that “urgent action is needed and required” to fight covid-19, A. Nicole Clowers, the GAO’s managing director for health care, said by phone. “We’ve been examining these issues for almost nine months now, and we’ve seen the lack of progress that’s been made.”She acknowledged the report contains “strong language for GAO,” adding: “We’re trying to spur that action that we believe is needed.”That’s up to Biden, whose serious approach to covid-19 is a sharp contrast to Trump’s.“The Biden administration is now forced to simultaneously clean up Trump’s mess it inherited,” Connolly said, “while also responding to the greatest public health pandemic in a hundred years.”
Just having a national plan with set goals and working the plan has produced good results in Biden's first 18 days. The US now has vaccinated more people then any other country. The number of new national cases per 1,000 has dropped nearly 30% since Biden took office.
Created:
Posted in:
I think of all those top secret security clearances that were denied by FBI during the Trump Administration. An FBI whistle-blower reported that at least 25 Trump White House appointees applied for top secret security and were rejected (which means the FBI has good reason to believe you are an active criminal or an active spy.). Trump had to specifically request that these people be given access to top secret data. All other presidents have apparently abided by the FBI's threat assessment but Trump brought known crooks and/or spies on board at least 25 times, including in the position of National Security Advisor.
I think the Biden Administration's policy of trusting FBI expertise is essential to American security, particularly in an age when we are bringing hackable weapons systems, hackable infrastructure online.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
--> @Intelligence_06He cancelled the Muslim ban. How is that not goodIt wasn’t a Muslim Ban lol
That's not what the guy who signed the executive order said.
December 7, 2015: In a statement shortly after the San Bernardino terrorist attack:
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. . . . Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again."
December 8, 2015: On MSNBC:
Geist: Donald, a customs agent would then ask a person their religion?Trump: That would be probably—they would say, “Are you Muslim?”Geist: And if they said, “Yes,” they would not be allowed in the country?Trump: That’s correct.
December 12, 2015: On Fox News:
It’s a temporary ban, not on everyone, but on many. . . . We're not insulting. This is about security. It's not about religion. This is about security. We can't allow people to come into this country that have horrible thoughts in their mind.
March 9, 2016: On CNN:
I think Islam hates us. There is something -- there is something there that is a tremendous hatred there. There's a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it. There's an unbelievable hatred of us. . . . we can't allow people coming into this country who have this hatred of the United States and of people who are not Muslim.
May 11, 2016: On Fox News Radio (at 7:30):
We have a serious problem, it's a temporary ban, it hasn't been called for yet, nobody's done it, this is just a suggestion until we find out what's going on.
The Twelve Instances of Trump Equating the Muslim Ban and the Travel Ban
May 11, 2016: On Fox News:
I’m looking at it very strongly with Rudy Giuliani heading it. I’ve spoken to him a little while ago. We’re going to put together a group of five or six people. Very, very highly thought of people, and I think Rudy will head it up, and we’ll look at the Muslim ban or the ‘temporary ban’ as we call it . . . He will head it up and he’s agreed to do so.
January 29, 2017: On Fox News:
Jeanine Pirro: I want to ask you about this ban [the territory ban Executive Order] and the protests. Does the ban [the territory ban] have anything to do with religion? How did the president decide the seven countries? I understand the permanent ban on the refugees. Talk to me.Rudy Giuliani: I will tell you the whole history of it [the Executive Order]. When he first announced it [the Executive Order], he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it [the Muslim ban] legally.’ I put a commission together with Judge Mukasey, with Congressman McCaul, [Congressman] Pete King, whole group of other very expert lawyers on this. And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger—the areas of the world that create danger for us, which is factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal.
June 13, 2016: In a speech:
I called for a ban after San Bernardino, and was met with great scorn and anger but now, many are saying I was right to do so -- and although the pause is temporary, we must find out what is going on. The ban will be lifted when we as a nation are in a position to properly and perfectly screen those people coming into our country. The immigration laws of the United States give the President the power to suspend entry into the country of any class of persons that the President deems detrimental to the interests or security of the United States, as he deems appropriate. I will use this power to protect the American people. When I am elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats.
June 15, 2016: In a speech:
We have to stop on a temporary basis at least, but we have to stop people from pouring into this country until we find out what the hell is going on. . . . We don’t want to have these problems, and we’ve already got ’em. Look at this weekend. We don’t want to have these problems. So what I’m saying is it’s a temporary ban, in particular for certain people coming from certain horrible—where you have tremendous terrorism in the world. You know what those places are. But we have to put a stop to it. We have to put a stop to it until such time as we can figure out what is going on.
June 27, 2016: In an NBC phone interview:
Trump said his Muslim ban would apply "in particular [to] the terrorist states."
July 17, 2016: On CBS (at 13:52),
Lesley Stahl: In December, [Mike Pence tweeted], "Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional."Trump: So you call it territories. OK? We're gonna do territories. We're gonna not let people come in from Syria that nobody knows who they are. Hillary Clinton wants 550 percent more people to come in than Obama who doesn't know what he's—]Stahl: So you're changing your position.Trump: No. Call it whatever you want. We'll call it territories, OK?Stahl: So not Muslims?Trump: You know, the Constitution, there's nothing like it. But it doesn't necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, as a country, OK? And I'll tell you this. Call it whatever you want, change territories, but there are territories and terror states and terror nations that we're not gonna allow the people to come into our country. And we're gonna have a thing called "Extreme vetting." And if people wanna come in, there's gonna be extreme vetting. We're gonna have extreme vetting. They're gonna come in and we're gonna know where they came from and who they are.
July 24, 2016: On NBC:
Chuck Todd: The Muslim ban. I think you've pulled back from it, but you tell me. You said, “Lastly and very importantly,” this is from your speech on Thursday night, “we must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.” This feels like a slight rollback.Trump: I don’t think it’s a rollbackTodd: Should it be interpreted as that?Todd: I don’t think so. I actually don’t think it’s a rollback. In fact, you could say it’s an expansion. I’m looking now at territories. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I’m okay with that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim. But just remember this: Our Constitution is great. But it doesn’t necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, okay? Now, we have a religious, you know, everybody wants to be protected. And that’s great. And that’s the wonderful part of our Constitution. I view it differently. Why are we committing suicide? Why are we doing that? But you know what? I live with our Constitution. I love our Constitution. I cherish our Constitution. We’re making it territorial. We have nations and we’ll come out, I’m going to be coming out over the next few weeks with a number of the places.
On July 25, 2016: On Fox News:
Hannity: What is your position? Because you were trying to explain yesterday [on NBC] that your position has not changed that you either vet them or they can’t get in.Trump: No. I think my position’s gotten bigger now. I’m talking about territories now. People don’t want me to say Muslim. I guess I prefer not saying it, frankly, myself. So we’re talking about territories.
[10] 10, 11. August 15, 2016: In a speech:
I call it extreme, extreme vetting. …In addition to screening out all members of the sympathizers of the terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes toward our country or its principles or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law. ...To put these new procedures in place, we will have to temporarily suspend immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism.On October 9, 2016: In a debate:Moderator: Your running mate said this week that the Muslim ban is no longer your position, and if it is, was it a mistake to have a religious test?Trump: …The Muslim ban is something that in some form has morphed into extreme vetting for certain areas of the world.Moderator: Why did it morph into that? Answer the question. Would you please explain whether the Muslim ban still stands?Trump: It is called extreme vetting. We are going to areas like Syria.
December 21, 2016: In an interview:
Reporter: Have you had cause to rethink or reevaluate your plans to create a Muslim register or ban Muslim immigration to the United States?Trump: You know my plans all along, and I’ve proven to be right, 100 percent correct.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
-> @oromagiWhat America saw 3 weeks ago was ugly. Shameful mob violence to disrupt a constitutionally mandated meeting of the Congress to affirm that transfer of power.Almost as shameful as the Boston Tea Party.
A truly terrible analogy.
Jan 6th was a lynch mob explicitly seeking the public execution of Pence and Pelosi, without benefit of trial, and in response to those two upholding their constitutionally mandated oaths of office- all in the name of an obvious lie thoroughly debunked by every lawful institution involved (of which there were hundreds). Jan 6th was an attack on the American public and on the American political system itself. That mob's stated goal was the truncation or elimination of American Democracy in favor of unlawfully extending the incumbency of their defacto king. Essentially, a reversal of the American Revolution.
A 17th Century analogy to Jan 6th would the Gunpowder Plot led by Guy Fawkes, which is still celebrated in England 400 years later by burning that traitor in effigy every Nov 5th.
The Boston Tea Party, on the other hand, was a just counter-reaction to the denial of any legal recourse under British law- the bald insistence that Americans had no rights that the British Govt. was obligated to uphold.
If you want a modern analogy, let's suppose that the question of whether Californians were also Americans enjoying the rights and privileges of US citizenship had never arisen until the California Wine market surpassed the existing French Wine market in volume, price and quality. Suppose further that Walmart owned the monopoly on all French wine exports and paid Congress handsomely to shut down the manufacture and sale of any wine in California. Worse, Congress then added a special wine tax for Californians while simultaneously exempting Walmart from any tax- essentially forcing Californians to subsidize their economic rivals. Suppose California sued Walmart but SCOTUS ruled that California had no rights or interests that Walmart was obligated to respect. Then California sued the government and the government sent in troops to reinforce the non-citizenship of Californians. In this context, would Californians be justified in breaking into every Walmart and smashing every bottle of French wine they could find? Would Californians, having been surprised to discover that were not the legal US citizens they thought they were be justified in forming their own government in response and fighting off any force that tried to stop them?
Britain had just ruled that Americans must pay tax and abide by British law but enjoyed no legal rights or representation or protection within that law. Essentially, all Americans had been re-categorized as British slaves.
The Boston Tea Party was a mob of 5000 people raised in a town of 15,000 residents- a third of the population was in attendance representing the overwhelming consensus of that colony. By contrast, MAGA stormed their own Capitol with a mob of 3000 representing an opinion supported by 3% of the constituency- that Trump had won the election.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
--> @oromagiThe sermonist response to oromagi:Turn what Ben Sasse said on your Democrats, who have also said, "we've got to fight." Where's this commentary by their own toward them? Hmmm? By their words ye shall know them. By their acts ye shall know them. I'd say it's about time all sides step back, ponder, and then say, "There but for the grace of God, go I." Only, we've been there in spite of the grace of God, so I think it's really time for some healing by admission that, grace of God, or not, we've all been down the road enough to know the road to good intentions is paved with hell.
You keep repeating that both Republicans and Democrats use the word "fight" and are thereby alike in terrorist attacks upon our democratic foundations. Mere whataboutism.
Fortunately, we have a contemporary example of when the tables were turned. In 2000, an incumbent Democratic administration won the popular vote and the electoral college vote came down to a margin of 537 votes which mandated a recount. When the government led by the big brother of the Republican candidate refused to perform his constitutional duty, the state Supreme Court insisted but then SCOTUS overruled saying it was already too late to count again. All 3 major non-partisan studies of the Florida vote by the National Opinion Research Center, the University of Florida, and American National Election Studies later concluded that any careful count of Floridian ballots resulted in a Gore win.
Let's examine the Democrat's use of the word fight in the same context:
Just moments ago, I spoke with George W. Bush and congratulated him on becoming the 43rd president of the United States, and I promised him that I wouldn't call him back this time.
I offered to meet with him as soon as possible so that we can start to heal the divisions of the campaign and the contest through which we just passed.
Almost a century and a half ago, Senator Stephen Douglas told Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency, "Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I'm with you, Mr. President, and God bless you."
Well, in that same spirit, I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside, and may God bless his stewardship of this country.
Neither he nor I anticipated this long and difficult road. Certainly neither of us wanted it to happen. Yet it came, and now it has ended, resolved, as it must be resolved, through the honored institutions of our democracy.
Over the library of one of our great law schools is inscribed the motto, "Not under man but under God and law." That's the ruling principle of American freedom, the source of our democratic liberties. I've tried to make it my guide throughout this contest as it has guided America's deliberations of all the complex issues of the past five weeks.
Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity of the people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.
I also accept my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new president-elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines and that our Constitution affirms and defends.
Let me say how grateful I am to all those who supported me and supported the cause for which we have fought. Tipper and I feel a deep gratitude to Joe and Hadassah Lieberman who brought passion and high purpose to our partnership and opened new doors, not just for our campaign but for our country.
This has been an extraordinary election. But in one of God's unforeseen paths, this belatedly broken impasse can point us all to a new common ground, for its very closeness can serve to remind us that we are one people with a shared history and a shared destiny.
Indeed, that history gives us many examples of contests as hotly debated, as fiercely fought, with their own challenges to the popular will.
Other disputes have dragged on for weeks before reaching resolution. And each time, both the victor and the vanquished have accepted the result peacefully and in the spirit of reconciliation.
So let it be with us.
I know that many of my supporters are disappointed. I am too. But our disappointment must be overcome by our love of country.
And I say to our fellow members of the world community, let no one see this contest as a sign of American weakness. The strength of American democracy is shown most clearly through the difficulties it can overcome.
Some have expressed concern that the unusual nature of this election might hamper the next president in the conduct of his office. I do not believe it need be so.
President-elect Bush inherits a nation whose citizens will be ready to assist him in the conduct of his large responsibilities.
I personally will be at his disposal, and I call on all Americans--I particularly urge all who stood with us--to unite behind our next president. This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done.
And while there will be time enough to debate our continuing differences, now is the time to recognize that that which unites us is greater than that which divides us.
While we yet hold and do not yield our opposing beliefs, there is a higher duty than the one we owe to political party. This is America and we put country before party. We will stand together behind our new president.
As for what I'll do next, I don't know the answer to that one yet. Like many of you, I'm looking forward to spending the holidays with family and old friends. I know I'll spend time in Tennessee and mend some fences, literally and figuratively.
Some have asked whether I have any regrets and I do have one regret: that I didn't get the chance to stay and fight for the American people over the next four years, especially for those who need burdens lifted and barriers removed, especially for those who feel their voices have not been heard. I heard you and I will not forget.
I've seen America in this campaign and I like what I see. It's worth fighting for and that's a fight I'll never stop.
As for the battle that ends tonight, I do believe as my father once said, that no matter how hard the loss, defeat might serve as well as victory to shape the soul and let the glory out.
So for me this campaign ends as it began: with the love of Tipper and our family; with faith in God and in the country I have been so proud to serve, from Vietnam to the vice presidency; and with gratitude to our truly tireless campaign staff and volunteers, including all those who worked so hard in Florida for the last 36 days.
Now the political struggle is over and we turn again to the unending struggle for the common good of all Americans and for those multitudes around the world who look to us for leadership in the cause of freedom.
In the words of our great hymn, "America, America": "Let us crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea."
And now, my friends, in a phrase I once addressed to others, it's time for me to go.
Thank you and good night, and God bless America.
I offered to meet with him as soon as possible so that we can start to heal the divisions of the campaign and the contest through which we just passed.
Almost a century and a half ago, Senator Stephen Douglas told Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency, "Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I'm with you, Mr. President, and God bless you."
Well, in that same spirit, I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside, and may God bless his stewardship of this country.
Neither he nor I anticipated this long and difficult road. Certainly neither of us wanted it to happen. Yet it came, and now it has ended, resolved, as it must be resolved, through the honored institutions of our democracy.
Over the library of one of our great law schools is inscribed the motto, "Not under man but under God and law." That's the ruling principle of American freedom, the source of our democratic liberties. I've tried to make it my guide throughout this contest as it has guided America's deliberations of all the complex issues of the past five weeks.
Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity of the people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.
I also accept my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new president-elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines and that our Constitution affirms and defends.
Let me say how grateful I am to all those who supported me and supported the cause for which we have fought. Tipper and I feel a deep gratitude to Joe and Hadassah Lieberman who brought passion and high purpose to our partnership and opened new doors, not just for our campaign but for our country.
This has been an extraordinary election. But in one of God's unforeseen paths, this belatedly broken impasse can point us all to a new common ground, for its very closeness can serve to remind us that we are one people with a shared history and a shared destiny.
Indeed, that history gives us many examples of contests as hotly debated, as fiercely fought, with their own challenges to the popular will.
Other disputes have dragged on for weeks before reaching resolution. And each time, both the victor and the vanquished have accepted the result peacefully and in the spirit of reconciliation.
So let it be with us.
I know that many of my supporters are disappointed. I am too. But our disappointment must be overcome by our love of country.
And I say to our fellow members of the world community, let no one see this contest as a sign of American weakness. The strength of American democracy is shown most clearly through the difficulties it can overcome.
Some have expressed concern that the unusual nature of this election might hamper the next president in the conduct of his office. I do not believe it need be so.
President-elect Bush inherits a nation whose citizens will be ready to assist him in the conduct of his large responsibilities.
I personally will be at his disposal, and I call on all Americans--I particularly urge all who stood with us--to unite behind our next president. This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done.
And while there will be time enough to debate our continuing differences, now is the time to recognize that that which unites us is greater than that which divides us.
While we yet hold and do not yield our opposing beliefs, there is a higher duty than the one we owe to political party. This is America and we put country before party. We will stand together behind our new president.
As for what I'll do next, I don't know the answer to that one yet. Like many of you, I'm looking forward to spending the holidays with family and old friends. I know I'll spend time in Tennessee and mend some fences, literally and figuratively.
Some have asked whether I have any regrets and I do have one regret: that I didn't get the chance to stay and fight for the American people over the next four years, especially for those who need burdens lifted and barriers removed, especially for those who feel their voices have not been heard. I heard you and I will not forget.
I've seen America in this campaign and I like what I see. It's worth fighting for and that's a fight I'll never stop.
As for the battle that ends tonight, I do believe as my father once said, that no matter how hard the loss, defeat might serve as well as victory to shape the soul and let the glory out.
So for me this campaign ends as it began: with the love of Tipper and our family; with faith in God and in the country I have been so proud to serve, from Vietnam to the vice presidency; and with gratitude to our truly tireless campaign staff and volunteers, including all those who worked so hard in Florida for the last 36 days.
Now the political struggle is over and we turn again to the unending struggle for the common good of all Americans and for those multitudes around the world who look to us for leadership in the cause of freedom.
In the words of our great hymn, "America, America": "Let us crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea."
And now, my friends, in a phrase I once addressed to others, it's time for me to go.
Thank you and good night, and God bless America.
****************************************************
I would compare Gore's concession to Trump's but Trump still refuses to concede. In fact, Trump entire legal team walked out on him this week, just days before Trump goes on trial for seditious incitement because Trump insists that his defense must be that his adminstraton, his Supreme Court stacked with Trump appointees and the political party he leads all conspired against him to deny him a second term- every scrap of evidence to the contrary.
- When Democrats say fight, the context is "for the common good of all Americans"
- When Republicans say fight, the context is "Trump or death"
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
The Conservative response to fauxlaw:
Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska)
"I listen to Nebraskans every day and very few of them are as angry about life as the people on this [Nebraska Republican Party Central] Committee. Not all of you but a lot.
Political addicts don't represent most Nebraska Conservatives.
Let’s be clear: The anger in this state party has never been about me violating principle or abandoning conservative policy. I’m one of the most conservative voters in the Senate. The anger’s always been simply about me not bending the knee to one guy.
What America saw 3 weeks ago was ugly. Shameful mob violence to disrupt a constitutionally mandated meeting of the Congress to affirm that transfer of power.
It happened because the President lied to you. He lied about the election results for 60 days, despite losing 60 straight court challenges — many handed down by wonderful Trump-appointed judges. He lied by saying that the vice president could violate his constitutional oath and just declare a new winner. He then riled a mob that attacked the Capitol — many chanting ‘Hang Pence.' If that president were a Democrat, we both know how you’d respond. But, because he had ‘Republican’ behind his name, you’re defending him.
Something has definitely changed over the last four years … but it’s not me.
- Personality cults aren't Conservative.
- Conspiracy theories aren't Conservative.
- Lying that an election has been stolen is not Conservative.
- Acting like politics is a religion- it isn't Conservative.
Nebraskans aren't rage addicts and that's good news. You are welcome to censure me again but let's be clear about why this is happening: its because I still believe (as you used to) that politics isn't about the weird worship of one dude.
The party can purge Trump skeptics but I'd like to convince you that'not only is that civic cancer for the Nation, it's just terrible for our party."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I once shared a jail cell with Ginsberg- true story.
Created:
Posted in:
metaphor
O say can you see on MSNBC
a policeman impaled at Mike Pence's demeaning?
Whose white hoods and red hats launched a perilous fight
O the Senate we watched, looted by Trump extremists
And Ted Cruz's red glare, cheese farts bursting in air
Gave proof through the night that the vote was still fair
O say does that bastard ex-POTUS still rave
And Ted Cruz's red glare, cheese farts bursting in air
Gave proof through the night that the vote was still fair
O say does that bastard ex-POTUS still rave
deep in the swamps of Florida or has he gone to his grave?
Created:
-->
@Athias
--> @oromagiThe best test of one's political alignment is a free and fair election.Reads well, but that's not the case. The best test of one's a political alignment is his/her capacity to dissent.
That's a test of liberty but I don't see how capacity to dissent reflects political alignment. Nelson Mandela is somebody who experienced a wide spectrum of variation in his capacity to dissent, for example, but we don't see corresponding shifts in political alignment. If anything, I'd expect reductions in capacity to dissent to reinforce or entrench alignment. I'd venture that the wealthy consistently enjoy improved capacity to dissent but we don't see a corresponding consistency in the politics of the rich.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
--> @oromagiLiz Cheney has forgotten her father?
Liz Cheney represents her father, both literally and figuratively. Let's note that Bush also made a particular and public point of connecting himself to Cheney's "greatest betrayal of America ever" remarks. Nothing that I've said should be mistaken for a change of alignment regarding Cheney nor do I want to discourage the civil war now now mustering within the GOP. I'm just saying its a bad look for Republicans to tear down their senior leadership exclusively for speaking objective truths on the House floor.
Bread of deceit is sweet to a man; but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I don't think it is a MUST but it is a SHOULD.
Consider the mafia games. These are the most active and popular forum posts on the site but people who aren't playing do a remarkable job of staying out of the forum. There's no rule in the COC that prevents non-players from trolling the forum but people generally respect the informal rule. A handful of trolls could easily interfere with those games or resentful dead players could easily blow up a game with secret knowledge but this very seldom happens. So, as a community we have certainly demonstrated a capacity to respect certain requests for forbearance.
Most of the forum posts I start don't really invite a lot of feedback but I can't think of a case where I'd ask somebody to stop posting. The whole point of the forum is free exchange.
RM has blocked me for the last year but I think I'm still free to add to his forums and I certainly have never objected to his contributions. I've never blocked anybody and I hope I never do. That's just core liberal ideology.
Dr.Franklin has asked me not to accept debates that he creates and I have respected that.
Greyparrot has requested a safe space in the forums where his opinion is protected from any contradiction on my part. I have generally respected the request although the objection is predicated on a false accusation of bullying. Greyparrot still feels free to address my remarks in forums and posts in forums that I've created while simultaneously demanding no response on my part. Still, I wouldn't ask him not to contribute- I only wish he wouldn't work to confine my free expression.
In most cases, I think it is bad form to dis-invite one particular contributor but in almost every case, I think the best response is to respect the request anyway.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @oromagiThe best test of one's political alignment is a free and fair election.IMPLEMENT AUTOMATIC REDISTRICTING.
agree.
WE MUST DEMAND RCV.
I support RCV. Two towns in Colorado already do RCV and there's a bill in the State House right now to build a county infrastructure for any district that wants ranked choice.
END PRIMARY ELECTIONS.
How does this work?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
What words, exactly, did Trump say to cause insurrection?
This is more than a month after Trump's lawyers advised him that there was little evidence of election fraud and therefore no possibility of winning the election:
vanity fair:
“No, it’s not over,” Trump told Kilmeade. “We keep going, and we’re going to continue to go forward. We have numerous local cases. We’re, you know, in some of the states that got rigged and robbed from us. We won every one of them. We won Pennsylvania. We won Michigan. We won Georgia by a lot.” Asked by Kilmeade how he plans to overturn the election results before Congress meets on January 6 to officially count all of the Electoral College votes, Trump said, “We’re going to speed it up as much as we can, but you can only go so fast. They give us very little time.” Later, he repeated his argument that because bookies thought he was going to win at one point, he should get to serve a second term:When Kilmeade seemingly attempted to do journalism, noting the concerns that Trump is doing major damage to the country by attempting to cry fraud, the president said, shockingly, that he doesn’t share those concerns. “I worry about the country having an illegitimate president,” he said. “That’s what I worry about. A president that lost and lost badly. This wasn’t, like, a close election…. I didn’t lose. The election was rigged.”
I could provide perhaps as many as a hundred similar treasonous, self-serving attacks on America's most vital mechanism: the free and fair election.
Besides, Cheney did not fault Trump for his words. She faulted Trump for his conduct:
"The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution."
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I don't buy that the left is all liberal anymore. It may have been at one time, but the left has clearly splintered: liberal / progressive / socialist/communist. I've always thought liberals - damn few of them left, a mere, literal handful - could think rationally and had valid, if different approaches than conservatives. The rest are group-think junkies without an original idea from any of them. Joe Biden is an anomoly because, while really a liberal, he never had an original idea in his head. He's just plain dumb regardless of politics.That said, conservatives have splintered, too. Liz Cheney, for example, is a neo-Con dolt, like most never-Trumpers. And then there are Rino's, like McCain was, and his daughter. Worthless. Romney isn't either one; he's really a Dem who just thinks he's Con, but has never acted like a Con. To me, a true Con is a strict originalist, who understands the Constitution in its 18th century syntax, which is not 21st by any means. Most people, D and R, think oof the Constitution as a cafeteria: choose this, ignore that, and anything is malleable. I don't consider myself a die-hard Trumpie; but he was massively better than any Dem alternative and most R alternatives, certainly better and more consistent than Biden will ever demonstrate, even if he lasts longer than 100 days.
The delusion that Republicans in 2020 represent any kind of Conservatism is well refuted by fauxlaw's post here.
Bush/Cheney, McCain, Romney are now all unacceptably to the LEFT of core Republicanism now, essentially rejecting the entire GOP platform since Nixon out of preference for naked Monarchism just so long as their king keeps taxes and black people down. Remember when neo-Cons represented the extreme right wing of the GOP? That was as recently as what, 2014?
What did Liz Cheney do to merit the contempt of core Republicanism except summarize the plain truth?
"The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution."
There no ambiguity to Cheney's statement. We all witnessed Trump's cowardice on live TV just weeks ago. Republicans can't defend Trump's cop-killer despotism so they attack Cheney for daring to criticize Trump's cop-killer despotism. T he trouble with autocrats is that the oath of fealty you swear to one will always be your last. Once you tear down the Star's and Stripes and put up a Trump flag, you must expect to share that loser's deposition.
The majority of Americans just elected a man whose been running on the same platform for 50 years but we're supposed to pretend that the terrorist lynch mob comprised of the least educated, most gullible rump of white masculine self-pity trying to overthrow that political stalwart are somehow the true conservatives?
Nope.
Created:
The best test of one's political alignment is a free and fair election.
Created:
Posted in:
I am the MILLER. The whole point of the role is to be less trusted by TOWN. The only way you can tell I'm not scum because I'm not trying to baffle TOWN with a rapidly shifting cascade of internally inconsistent arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
sadolite saying he can't find news to confirm his world view anymore is like Noah's dove returning with a sprig of olive. Four years of reign has ended and somewhere beyond the swamp's horizon, dry land is indicated. (Let's note 3 months = election day)
That's okay, sad, no news is an improvement on fake news anyway. Remember when they told you smoking prevented coronavirus? Remember when they told you Stonehenge was built in 1954?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
CAPTION:
who has contributed nothing this whole phase
IMAGE:
Lunatic, wearing a jumpsuit emblazoned with the logo AJAX CHEMiCALS, dropping a baby into a dumpster behind the AJAX CHEMiCALS plant.
Created:
Posted in:
I think I believe Supa too. I don't see any reason for Supa to change his story unmprompted. I hate his NP1 watch but I believe his change of story was prompted by Chris, which therefore sort of confirms Supa to my mind.
If I wasn't MILLER, I'd probably be sus'ing the MILLER now. But I am MILLER which means I believe there was or is a COP. Which means that SENSOR is not only too OP for this game but also too many intel roles combined with WATCHER and COP.
VTL Elminster
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Let's also make clear that I am an un CC'd power nation. France was a big 3 before the Nazi invasion. If I am scum, why wouldn't I have been CC'd.
Typically, historians talk about the big 5 powers of which France was not one.
For example, John Keegan's history examines the sleeping habits of the 5 big decsion-makers of WW2- Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, and Tojo.
When you play the game of Axis & Allies, the game is designed for 5 players- Germany, UK, USA, USSR, and Japan.
I don't buy FRANCE as a power nation although you were not CC'd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Tell me, if there is no cop, what is the point of having a miller?
what makes you think there was/is no COP?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
his role hasn't got a shred of support to it.
There's no further support to offer except everything up front.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
But elminsters results do suggest one of pie or supa, and given that speeds results line up with elminsters, I think we are better off lynching oro here. Also why would elminster lie so early for no reason?
I dont buy SENSOR.....seems to OP for this game. EVEN claim seems convenient way to explain no NP1 check. You seem to have swung 180 on the claim and I wonder why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
What the justification for FRANCE as watcher?
Created:
Posted in:
X. Pie xxxxxxxx XXXXXXXX
X. Elminster USSR HATED
TOWN
Oromagi Yugoslavia MILLER
Reece101 Canada VANILLA
Whiteflame Greece
Lunatic Mexico
Speed America DOCTOR
Greyparrot China VANILLA
Intelminster Poland SENSOR
Supa France WATCHER
SCUM
X.SirAnonymous Japan ROLEBLOCKER
JANITOR
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Whatever, I'm the 2x doc, the reason it's mikal is he somehow knew I was the doc before I said anything,
POST#?
would make sense if he's mafia and targeted me and his action failed
If he targeted you why would he assume your were self doc'ing?
This also means mafia has a Ninja, if the roles are RB, Janitor, and Ninja, then it makes sense that there's no cop and just a watcher. I don't think we have a cop
Well I know I am a MILLER so I expect to see a COP but let's recall that might have been Pie. I have a hard time believing that a COP wouldn't be able to shed some light by DP3.
Created:
Posted in:
X. Pie xxxxxxxx XXXXXXXX
X. Elminster USSR HATED
TOWN
Oromagi Yugoslavia MILLER
Reece101 Canada VANILLA
Whiteflame Greece
Lunatic Mexico
Speed America
Greyparrot China VANILLA
Intelminster Poland SENSOR
Supa France WATCHER
SCUM
X.SirAnonymous Japan ROLEBLOCKER
JANITOR
Created:
Posted in:
I don't really buy SENSOR claim.
It's not that good a match for the Poland justification and if I was running my first game, I probably would not include SENSOR which MafiaWiki advises:
"Experiments with variants of Sensor have shown that no matter how hard you try to nerf a variant of this role, it nearly always ends up being overpowered anyway. For example, in cases where players' vote weights are unclear, players have a habit of deducing them (via massclaim or experimentally) just so that they can make use of the Sensor results."
I VTL'd Elm last DP on SOP- if somebody self-VTL's, lynch them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
There's no CC for WATCHER but I don't really buy watching Elm NP1. He had claimed HATED which SCUM likely believed so why would any SCUM visit Elm? Why watch a non-PR fully claimed on NP?
I buy watching Speed NP2
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
--> @Speedracepls. confirm you do not CC Supa's claim that you did not move last night
sorry that's wrong, not tracker
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
pls. confirm you do not CC Supa's claim that you did not move last night
Created:
Posted in:
X. Pie xxxxxxxx XXXXXXXX
X. Elminster USSR HATED
TOWN
Oromagi Yugoslavia MILLER
Whiteflame Greece
Lunatic Mexico
Speed America
Greyparrot China VANILLA
Intelminster Poland SENSOR
Reece101 VANILLA
Supa France WATCHER
SCUM
X.SirAnonymous Japan ROLEBLOCKER
JANITOR
Created:
Posted in:
X. Pie xxxxxxxx XXXXXXXX
TOWN
Oromagi Yugoslavia MILLER
Whiteflame Greece
Lunatic Mexico
Supa France
Speed America
Elminster USSR HATED
Greyparrot China VANILLA
AWoL
Intelligence_06
Reece101
SCUM
X.SirAnonymous Japan ROLEBLOCKER
JANITOR
I am willing to entertain the idea that the AWoL are not PR and prob not SCUM or CHRIS would not have started DP2 so quick. I don't like Elm & Grey's quick dismissal.
JAPAN likely reinforces AXIS v ALLIES but I also note we could have a Big 5 v minors division or a PAC v EURO theater division.
VTL Elminster
Created:
Posted in:
X. Pie xxxxxxxx XXXXXXXX
TOWN
Oromagi Yugoslavia MILLER
Elminster USSR HATED
Supa France
Lunatic Mexico
Speed America
Whiteflame Greece
Greyparrot China VANILLA
Intelligence_06
Reece101
SCUM
X.SirAnonymous Japan ROLEBLOCKER
JANITOR
Created: