A
AlNg
Guest
So there is a secret list of 16000 lies of President Trump? Is that what you want us to believe?
- Status
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
Its not hard to find the source of the claim:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Where have you witnessed a “suspension of the willingness to criticize” vis a vis Trump?
All I see is a proliferation of the willingness to criticize him in the media, the entertainment industry, social media, the bureaucracies, the “loyal” opposition and roughly 50% of the population.
Seems like you ought to be celebrating that the opposition to Trump is healthy and vibrant.
Yet, what is it that you want, that everyone ought to be critical of him, just 'cuz? That would imply everyone would simply take up positions opposite to him on every issue. Is that what you want?
The legal system is an adversarial system, as is the political system.
Clearly Trump cannot make a move without intense criticism and adversity. Ergo, you should be happy because we are in no danger of acceding to an authoritarian regime.
Although, I suspect, if the media, the entertainment industry, higher education, the globalists, and the Dem establishment had their way, that is precisely what we would have: to wit, authoritarian government control over the economy, the way we think, how we act and every aspect of our lives – i.e., the Green New Deal absent all dissent – careful what you wish for.
Last edited:
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
- His selection of General Mattis was an excellent choice.
- His understanding of the national zeitgeist, especially within his base, is incredibly good.
- His push for a cure for cancer/AIDS is a good idea
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Good for you, the first step to recovery.HarryStotle:
- His selection of General Mattis was an excellent choice.
- His understanding of the national zeitgeist, especially within his base, is incredibly good.
- His push for a cure for cancer/AIDS is a good idea
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
The fact that the world outside a cult is critical of the cult is not the kind of criticism that is relevant for the 10-signs-of-a-cult list.
P
petra22
Guest
Mueller cleared him??? You said that? Bell ringer!
D
drcube
Guest
No, the whistleblower is totally irrelevant and became so when Trump released the transcript of the call showing he chose to extort the Ukrainian government to investigating his political enemies by withholding money earmarked for the Ukraine. The whistleblower, no matter what his motive was, was correct in what happened.
P
petra22
Guest
Excellent summary in my opinion!
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
Except what about the part where Trump’s people were haggling with the prior Ukrainian administrations’ corrupt prosecutor over him announcing investigations into the Bidens?
Last edited:
P
petra22
Guest
Who in the country has the responsibility for foreign affairs/dealings? The President or the House of Representatives?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
You are assuming those “inside” the “cult” are incapable of criticizing the leader, merely because they happen to agree with the leader’s views…HarryStotle:
The fact that the world outside a cult is critical of the cult is not the kind of criticism that is relevant for the 10-signs-of-a-cult list.
Actually, what you are assuming is that your perspective “outside” the “cult” is necessarily the correct one and therefore anyone who does not agree with your perspective must be in error and part of a cult simply because they disagree with you.
That would mean that you have access to the unquestionable truth regarding the issues the “cult” is concerned with. Wouldn’t that mean that you on every issue have access to (10) “…the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible,” simply by YOUR accusing those with political views different from your own of being “a cult?”
I can list 10 (or 20) things I agree with Trump on regarding policy. If you want to claim that I am wrong on all ten (and therefore belong to a cult), that would mean you believe yourself to be absolutely correct on all 10 with no possibility of being incorrect. That implies you think you MUST HAVE “the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible” in the mere assertion that those who happen to disagree with you are “a cult.”
Last edited:
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
I see we’re talking about a different list item now. I’m not sure which list item says that cults have to be wrong about 10/10 beliefs though.
P
petra22
Guest
Isn’t that between DT and God? Why are you trying to get in the middle of that?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Your claim is that a cult is identifiable by the fact that members of a cult showHarryStotle:
I see we’re talking about a different list item now. I’m not sure which list item says that cults have to be wrong about 10/10 beliefs though.
- NO tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
- The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.
That would be my point.
By insisting those who agree with Trump on policy issues belong to a cult, posters like @Maximus1, @PetraG and possibly yourself believe you have some kind of privileged insight into a substantial number of Trump advocates, and at a sufficient level to know that all ten points, but specifically 2. and 10 apply to those in the Trump camp.
However, aren’t you demonstrating, thereby that YOU or the side you represent “are the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible” regarding what makes Trump followers tick?
I mean it isn’t as if you have attempted to impartially understand the positions of Trump advocates like myself. You just assume you are correct on every issue vis a vis Trump. Meaning you believe your side has the “exclusive means of knowing “truth” or receiving validation…,” which means you yourself belong to a cult, no?
P
petra22
Guest
You mean the Obama administration put DT under surveillance via the FiSCa court warrants? That would be one less lie and it could be crossed off DT 16,000 lies to date…
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I am sure the other 15 999 supposed “lies” will also fall like dominoes soon after that.HarryStotle:
You mean the Obama administration put DT under surveillance via the FiSCa court warrants? That would be one less lie and it could be crossed off DT 16,000 lies to date…
A
AlNg
Guest
What they say are lies are really not lies at all. For example, they say that:
JAN 18 2020
“Since my election the United States has gained 7 million jobs.”
is an example.
However, is this not true? Why claim it is a lie?
P
PetraG
Guest
I like his Supreme Court picks. I don’t like that he seems to just shoot from the hip when he makes decisions, but I like that he doesn’t feel he has to do things the way they’ve always been done.
I think he’s probably done more or at least as much to limit the use of tax dollars to support abortion than any other President since Roe v Wade, Republican or Democrat.
Honestly, I think he really would like to get everybody health care and do it in a cost-effective manner. His promised plan seems to be non-existent, but even saying he wanted to do it was going against the Republican grain. The current system is really expensive and inefficient, and I think that irritates him.
He also takes the trouble to go to rural areas and to exert himself to take the side of people who get ignored a lot. I could think of some instances where what he’s done has not had the intended effect for his constituents, but I do think he intended an outcome that benefits them. There are others in politics who really look down on that demographic from about 20,000 feet. Some of what he does is a total sales job, but even if it is he gets points for getting himself out to people who get ignored too much. I mean he actually flies into the places that others in politics fly over. That counts for a lot.
It is actually frustrating that he is more genuine in some ways and yet so much of a salesman who will say nearly anything that comes into his head to sell himself. It is frustrating that he’s open to new ideas but doesn’t seem to want to put the work in to understand the complexities of situations. It is frustrating that he speaks and does things without seeming to realize that there is a record of everything he’s said or done in public since he declared his candidacy.
He’s very free about making decisions, he thinks big, he isn’t timid. He could stand to be a LOT less impulsive, but on the other hand he isn’t so overawed by his position that he’s afraid to act. He looks for things to do that will have an impact. Not everybody in politics is so results-driven.
Now, I think you’ve heard me say what I think pulls down those qualities I’ve listed, and pulls them down in a big way, I really think he is a pretty poor President on a lot of fronts, but it isn’t as if he has no qualities that someone in elected office ought to have. He actually has some that are in short supply.
Last edited:
M
mrad25
Guest
No it doesn’t from the article I posted. What you quoted is not the Constitution but Mason’s view on impeachment. Again, the Constitution doesn’t say “no crimes”. There is a legal requirement for impeachment - not just political theater or whatever Congress says. It’s also not just what Mason hoped for, since that was rejected. The Constitution specifies what is required.
From the article posted: “Though the men had very different positions on the Constitution, their debates in Philadelphia and at Virginia’s ratifying convention in Richmond produced crucial definitions of an impeachable offenses.” "Still, by September, the delegates hadn’t resolved impeachment’s toughest question: What exactly was an impeachable offense? On September 4, the Committee on Postponed Matters, named to resolve the convention’s thorniest disputes, had replaced the “malpractice or neglect of duty” standard for impeachment with a much narrower one: “treason and bribery.” “Limiting impeachment to treason and bribery cases, Mason warned on September 8, “will not reach many great and dangerous offences.” To make his case, he pointed to an impeachment taking place in Great Britain at the time—that of Warren Hastings, the Governor-General of India.” "Hastings was accused of abuses of power, not treason, and that the Constitution needed to guard against a president who might commit misdeeds like those alleged against Hastings. (In the end, The House of Lords acquitted Hastings in 1795.) History - acquitted of abuse of power. Read why!
““Madison feared the Senate would use the word “maladministration” as an excuse to remove the president whenever it wanted.” Mason added high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States, but guess what happened, the words “against the United States” were omitted by the he convention’s Committee on Style and Revision, which was supposed to improve the draft Constitution’s language without changing its meaning, deleted the phrase “against the United States.”
To understand exactly how the Founding fathers felt about impeachment you can look at the Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson. From the article: "Yet he House rejected a broad attempt to impeach Johnson for abuse of power in 1867, because many congressmen felt a president had to commit a crime to be impeached. Instead, Johnson was impeached in 1868 for firing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in violation of the Tenure of Office Act. That law was arguably unconstitutional – a factor that contributed to the Senate’s decision to acquit.
Again History - would not impeach for “abuse of power” and instead used an actual crime on the books to impeach on.
High crimes and misdemeanors are criminal offenses, and are typically criminal law cases…
Last edited:
- Status