|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Apr 4, 2024 15:49:03 GMT -8
Thanks a lot Rush Limpblob!
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Apr 4, 2024 16:01:57 GMT -8
If you bothered to read the article that was posted, it will tell you why Trump didn't call the military in. But, yes, assume for just a second that his respect for tradition and institution was so strong, he couldn't bring himself to do it. This is the same guy who fired multiple IG's who didn't adhere to his standard, the same guy who shredded the impartiality of the AG's office, the same guy who denigrated the military on multiple occasions, mocked POW's and oh, yeah, tried to subvert an election through a coordinated assault on the Capitol. Talk about respect for institutions...
The critical difference between you and me is I have what's called "common sense." January 6th, for example. Your argument clearly is that because the military wasn't called in, it diminishes the seriousness and magnitude of the event itself. "The terrorists didn't ultimately succeed, so it's alright." This is, of course, insanely naive and silly. The fact that January 6th was able to take place *at all* is what's critically important. A pre-planned, multi-pronged, concentrated effort where multiple people died because a tyrannical bully couldn't accept the fact he lost an election.
I don't need a World War II lecture, I'm well aware of history. We just don't fundamentally agree that "this can't possibly become Nazi Germany" is the valued point here. The country "surviving" isn't the point, either. The long-lasting institutional damage from a malignant narcissist who literally got people KILLED (in more ways than one) IS the point. The mere fact we have a candidate running for the presidency who is under active indictment for stealing classified intelligence IS the point.
Why the quotes? I did not write the quoted statement, so the quotes are misleading. As a matter of fact, I do not think the Jan. 6 incident was alright. Far from it.
With respect to Jan. 6th, I do not think any institutional damage was done. On the contrary, I think our institutions are stronger now than before. I would say that any new attempt to disrupt congressional proceedings would be met with effective armed response.
AzWm
Let's talk about damage in another context: The justice system. Trump has been indicted now four times. He's managed to delay trials across the board through due process and a variety of appeals/motions. If he wins, he shuts down the investigations into himself...himself. He can literally order the DOJ to cease investigating, and he walks. That illustrates that presidents are above the law, even if they treat the law as a joke. He's violated the expanded gag order in his New York case already, attacking the judge, his family, the prosecution, pretty much everyone. Another defendant would be detained pre-trial. Not him, of course. So, yeah, I wholeheartedly and vehemently disagree with your assessment that no damage has taken place.
|
|
|
Post by azson on Apr 5, 2024 7:53:08 GMT -8
If you bothered to read the article that was posted, it will tell you why Trump didn't call the military in. But, yes, assume for just a second that his respect for tradition and institution was so strong, he couldn't bring himself to do it. This is the same guy who fired multiple IG's who didn't adhere to his standard, the same guy who shredded the impartiality of the AG's office, the same guy who denigrated the military on multiple occasions, mocked POW's and oh, yeah, tried to subvert an election through a coordinated assault on the Capitol. Talk about respect for institutions...
The critical difference between you and me is I have what's called "common sense." January 6th, for example. Your argument clearly is that because the military wasn't called in, it diminishes the seriousness and magnitude of the event itself. "The terrorists didn't ultimately succeed, so it's alright." This is, of course, insanely naive and silly. The fact that January 6th was able to take place *at all* is what's critically important. A pre-planned, multi-pronged, concentrated effort where multiple people died because a tyrannical bully couldn't accept the fact he lost an election.
I don't need a World War II lecture, I'm well aware of history. We just don't fundamentally agree that "this can't possibly become Nazi Germany" is the valued point here. The country "surviving" isn't the point, either. The long-lasting institutional damage from a malignant narcissist who literally got people KILLED (in more ways than one) IS the point. The mere fact we have a candidate running for the presidency who is under active indictment for stealing classified intelligence IS the point.
Why the quotes? I did not write the quoted statement, so the quotes are misleading. As a matter of fact, I do not think the Jan. 6 incident was alright. Far from it.
With respect to Jan. 6th, I do not think any institutional damage was done. On the contrary, I think our institutions are stronger now than before. I would say that any new attempt to disrupt congressional proceedings would be met with effective armed response.
AzWm
Wm, five police officers who had served at the Capitol on Jan. 6 died as a result, in an insurrection incited by Trump. Trump is currently leading in the polls to be elected president again, and thanks to his political maneuvering within the "institution" you deem so strong, it appears he'll be able to sidestep the 88 criminal charges against him long enough to be elected, after which he'll do further incalculable damage to the institution (not speculation, he has said as much). As I wrote in another thread, you need to get your head out of the 30s & 40s, wake up and smell the clear and present danger.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Apr 5, 2024 8:22:51 GMT -8
This person is an influential member of Congress and was on a short list of potential VP candidates.
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Apr 5, 2024 8:53:20 GMT -8
This person is an influential member of Congress and was on a short list of potential VP candidates. People like this were laughed off the podium even 10 years ago and never would have sniffed political power. How far the mighty have fallen. America has become a joke...and did you know Biden is on coke? This $#!+ show has been enabled by one person. The orange blood clot charlatan.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Apr 5, 2024 9:51:49 GMT -8
If you bothered to read the article that was posted, it will tell you why Trump didn't call the military in. But, yes, assume for just a second that his respect for tradition and institution was so strong, he couldn't bring himself to do it. This is the same guy who fired multiple IG's who didn't adhere to his standard, the same guy who shredded the impartiality of the AG's office, the same guy who denigrated the military on multiple occasions, mocked POW's and oh, yeah, tried to subvert an election through a coordinated assault on the Capitol. Talk about respect for institutions...
The critical difference between you and me is I have what's called "common sense." January 6th, for example. Your argument clearly is that because the military wasn't called in, it diminishes the seriousness and magnitude of the event itself. "The terrorists didn't ultimately succeed, so it's alright." This is, of course, insanely naive and silly. The fact that January 6th was able to take place *at all* is what's critically important. A pre-planned, multi-pronged, concentrated effort where multiple people died because a tyrannical bully couldn't accept the fact he lost an election.
I don't need a World War II lecture, I'm well aware of history. We just don't fundamentally agree that "this can't possibly become Nazi Germany" is the valued point here. The country "surviving" isn't the point, either. The long-lasting institutional damage from a malignant narcissist who literally got people KILLED (in more ways than one) IS the point. The mere fact we have a candidate running for the presidency who is under active indictment for stealing classified intelligence IS the point.
Why the quotes? I did not write the quoted statement, so the quotes are misleading. As a matter of fact, I do not think the Jan. 6 incident was alright. Far from it.
With respect to Jan. 6th, I do not think any institutional damage was done. On the contrary, I think our institutions are stronger now than before. I would say that any new attempt to disrupt congressional proceedings would be met with effective armed response.
AzWm
Let's talk about damage in yet another institutional context: The Russian nexus surrounding Donald Trump. We know that the Senate concluded Russia interfered in the 2016 election to denigrate Hillary Clinton. We know Trump's orbit is filled with ties to Russia, whether it's oligarchs or Putin's inner circle itself. Voting is about as "institutional" as it gets, no?
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Apr 5, 2024 10:38:51 GMT -8
This person is an influential member of Congress and was on a short list of potential VP candidates. To me, it's not wacky to say that America needs God, and that people need to repent, but I don't know if he's sending us signals through earthquakes, etc....
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Apr 5, 2024 10:51:35 GMT -8
This person is an influential member of Congress and was on a short list of potential VP candidates. To me, it's not wacky to say that America needs God, and that people need to repent, but I don't know if he's sending us signals through earthquakes, etc.... We have a thing called separation of church and state for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Apr 5, 2024 11:11:36 GMT -8
To me, it's not wacky to say that America needs God, and that people need to repent, but I don't know if he's sending us signals through earthquakes, etc.... We have a thing called separation of church and state for a reason. That's besides the point. I'm just stating an opinion on a belief,as she is.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Apr 5, 2024 11:19:19 GMT -8
We have a thing called separation of church and state for a reason. That's besides the point. I'm just stating an opinion on a belief,as she is. No, it's not besides the point. I don't care about your beliefs. She's a member of Congress, using her social media account to espouse her cult-like views. That's a problem.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Apr 5, 2024 11:59:09 GMT -8
That's besides the point. I'm just stating an opinion on a belief,as she is. No, it's not besides the point. I don't care about your beliefs. She's a member of Congress, using her social media account to espouse her cult-like views. That's a problem. No, it's YOUR own problem. You're deciding to care about someone's belief that doesn't interfere with law. You're triggered by it. That's on you.
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Apr 5, 2024 12:02:51 GMT -8
We have a thing called separation of church and state for a reason. That's besides the point. I'm just stating an opinion on a belief,as she is. John, you know I respect your posts, but can you not see clearly that this person is off her rocker? Repenting? For this person or trump, religious reference is for manipulation and power only..it is clear as day.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Apr 5, 2024 12:07:17 GMT -8
No, it's not besides the point. I don't care about your beliefs. She's a member of Congress, using her social media account to espouse her cult-like views. That's a problem. No, it's YOUR own problem. You're deciding to care about someone's belief that doesn't interfere with law. You're triggered by it. That's on you. Do yourself and read the First Amendment. If she wasn't a MEMBER of CONGRESS, it wouldn't be an issue. I get that you want to shove your beliefs around, but we have the Establishment Clause for this exact reason. Take the blinders off and actually think beyond a fourth grade level.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Apr 5, 2024 12:17:38 GMT -8
No, it's YOUR own problem. You're deciding to care about someone's belief that doesn't interfere with law. You're triggered by it. That's on you. Do yourself and read the First Amendment. If she wasn't a MEMBER of CONGRESS, it wouldn't be an issue. I get that you want to shove your beliefs around, but we have the Establishment Clause for this exact reason. Take the blinders off and actually think beyond a fourth grade level. I'll explain why this is an actual problem, so it's clear. The MAGA movement is rooted in Christofascist ideology. It's cult-like behavior, with loaded statements like this. "Last year, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican and a close Trump ally, said both the former president and Jesus had been arrested by “radical, corrupt governments.” On Saturday, Mr. Trump shared an article on social media with the headline “The Crucifixion of Donald Trump.” As an actual Christian, this should be reprehensible for you. Or this: “He’s definitely been chosen by God,” said Marie Zere, a commercial real estate broker from Long Island who attended the Conservative Political Action Conference in February outside Washington, D.C. “He’s still surviving even though all these people are coming after him, and I don’t know how else to explain that other than divine intervention." The First Amendment is clear: Religion and politics are separate entities.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Apr 5, 2024 13:26:34 GMT -8
That's besides the point. I'm just stating an opinion on a belief,as she is. John, you know I respect your posts, but can you not see clearly that this person is off her rocker? Repenting? For this person or trump, religious reference is for manipulation and power only..it is clear as day. I was only stating my opinion based on what she said, in religious terms. Nothing political on my end.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Apr 5, 2024 13:30:34 GMT -8
John, you know I respect your posts, but can you not see clearly that this person is off her rocker? Repenting? For this person or trump, religious reference is for manipulation and power only..it is clear as day. I was only stating my opinion based on what she said, in religious terms. Nothing political on my end. Then you miss the point.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Apr 5, 2024 13:30:52 GMT -8
No, it's YOUR own problem. You're deciding to care about someone's belief that doesn't interfere with law. You're triggered by it. That's on you. Do yourself and read the First Amendment. If she wasn't a MEMBER of CONGRESS, it wouldn't be an issue. I get that you want to shove your beliefs around, but we have the Establishment Clause for this exact reason. Take the blinders off and actually think beyond a fourth grade level. No, I don't try "shove" my beliefs around, but I'm certainly not shy to talk about them. According to my religion, you shouldn't be. There will always be haters in regards to it, but it's not even a sliver of what Jesus went through, so it's all good. The one with the fourth grade mentality would be you, since you LET it trigger you. There's A LOT that gets in your head, and you let it eat you up. Not good. Work on that, it's not healthy.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Apr 5, 2024 13:33:36 GMT -8
I was only stating my opinion based on what she said, in religious terms. Nothing political on my end. Then you miss the point. Not true. I get the point. I'm only saying that what she is saying has some merit, but not all of it. Again, you're making it more than it is. Relax, if you can.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Apr 5, 2024 13:40:08 GMT -8
Do yourself and read the First Amendment. If she wasn't a MEMBER of CONGRESS, it wouldn't be an issue. I get that you want to shove your beliefs around, but we have the Establishment Clause for this exact reason. Take the blinders off and actually think beyond a fourth grade level. No, I don't try "shove" my beliefs around, but I'm certainly not shy to talk about them. According to my religion, you shouldn't be. There will always be haters in regards to it, but it's not even a sliver of what Jesus went through, so it's all good. The one with the fourth grade mentality would be you, since you LET it trigger you. There's A LOT that gets in your head, and you let it eat you up. Not good. Work on that, it's not healthy. You absolutely do. You mention it *constantly.* In the same breath, you spout hypocrisy everywhere, including this thread. People who have to promote their faith? Kinda know how that goes. I don't care what you believe. It's yours, but I have the same exact right to *not* want to hear it. Perfectly normal. What you fail to understand here has nothing to do with the actuality of the text, but the position of the person utilizing it. And no, nothing you say gets in my head. I close this website and forget you exist in 30 seconds. Focus more on your hypocritical sentiments and less on how other people live their own lives.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Apr 5, 2024 13:40:57 GMT -8
Not true. I get the point. I'm only saying that what she is saying has some merit, but not all of it. Again, you're making it more than it is. Relax, if you can. Church. State. Separation. Read the Constitution. It's inappropriate. If it was her Congressional account, she would be under fire.
|
|