Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 179

Thread: Dangers to Democracy

  1. #41
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    7,464
    Thanks
    2,746
    Thanked 2,618 Times in 1,527 Posts
    Rep Power
    19

    Default Re: Dangers to Democracy

    Include the context of Trump's argument, instead of Christie's soundbite characterization.

    In the context of Trump's claim that 2020 was "stolen" (setting aside whether or not that's the case), and he hypothetically proved it; what would the remedy be? The Constitution only addresses when electoral votes are counted and when a President is inaugurated. Would the correction of installing an actually illegitimate President require some sort of setting aside that portion of the Constitution? Could that be what Trump is talking about? Does it make more sense than the media's characterization of it?

    What's the alternative? That Trump claimed he was going to set aside the Constitution to become a dictator?

    Don't simply cite text. Make your claim and substantiate it. Otherwise this is more hyperbolic running down a rabbit hole, from a media that is documented as lying to sway public perception from what is true (which is gaslighting).

    How many times do you have to fall for it before you increase your skepticism? The list is getting awfully long.

    Hunter's laptop was declared a hoax. Social media squashed the story. Twitter suspended the New York Post's account. 51 intelligence officials (many actually just contractors) said it had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. Recently Mike Morell (former acting CIA director) admits it was fabricated, and it was fabricated to give Biden that talking point during one of his debates with Trump. Anthony Blinken makes sure everyone knows "it wasn't my idea".

    The Steele Dossier was a hoax Hillary was fined by the FEC for paying for.

    The "fine people" hoax was recently admitted to be a hoax - by left-leaning Snopes, no less.

    How many years did the media lie to you, and claim Biden's cognitive decline wasn't real? Was it just "cheap fakes", as Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre recently claimed.

    Google Nancy Pelosi's discussion of the "wrap up smear". How many of these interactions and reinforcement of narratives fit the formula she describes?
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to dneal For This Useful Post:

    kazoolaw (July 7th, 2024)

  3. #42
    Senior Member Warbler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2024
    Posts
    946
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 37 Times in 37 Posts
    Rep Power
    1

    Default Re: Dangers to Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Include the context of Trump's argument, instead of Christie's soundbite characterization.

    In the context of Trump's claim that 2020 was "stolen" (setting aside whether or not that's the case), and he hypothetically proved it; what would the remedy be?
    I assume you meant if he hypothetically proved it. As far as I know he didn't prove the election was stolen whatsoever.

    As for the remedy, take it to court. Challenge the election legally under the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    The Constitution only addresses when electoral votes are counted and when a President is inaugurated. Would the correction of installing an actually illegitimate President require some sort of setting aside that portion of the Constitution?
    I don't know. I am open to discussing amending the Constitution to deal with an already installed illegitimate President.

    I think the key to part of it is to try to LEGALLY prevent the installation of an illegitimate. Again if you think something bad happened in the election, challenge it in court.

    As far a I know multiple court cases were herd by multiple judges and none has stuck so far.


    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Could that be what Trump is talking about? Does it make more sense than the media's characterization of it?
    Either way, it is wrong. YOU DON'T SET ASIDE THE CONSTITUTION. NEVER. Setting aside the Constitution puts us on the road to ending our Democratic Republic.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    What's the alternative? That Trump claimed he was going to set aside the Constitution to become a dictator?
    Well just what do you think would happen if sitting President were actually successful as setting aside the Constitution. What would stop him or her? Where would we be without the Constitutions limits on the powers of our elected officials? Without the the separation of powers? Without our Constitutional rights?


    Don't simply cite text. Make your claim and substantiate it. Otherwise this is more hyperbolic running down a rabbit hole, from a media that is documented as lying to sway public perception from what is true (which is gaslighting).

    How many times do you have to fall for it before you increase your skepticism? The list is getting awfully long.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Hunter's laptop was declared a hoax. Social media squashed the story. Twitter suspended the New York Post's account. 51 intelligence officials (many actually just contractors) said it had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. Recently Mike Morell (former acting CIA director) admits it was fabricated, and it was fabricated to give Biden that talking point during one of his debates with Trump. Anthony Blinken makes sure everyone knows "it wasn't my idea".
    I don't think I've ever mentioned Hunter's laptop.


    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    The Steele Dossier was a hoax Hillary was fined by the FEC for paying for.
    I am not convinced it was a hoax, even though Hillary was fined for possibly violating campaign finance law.



    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    The "fine people" hoax was recently admitted to be a hoax - by left-leaning Snopes, no less.
    link?


    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    How many years did the media lie to you, and claim Biden's cognitive decline wasn't real? Was it just "cheap fakes", as Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre recently claimed.
    the Press Secretary is not a member of the media. She works for the President, not a media organization. But I do agree they played down his cognitive decline. I agree you have to take what the mainstream media with a grain of salt. I do not deny that there is a left leaning bias in the mainstream media. I wish it were not so. But that doesn't mean I am going to turn to Conservative-r-us mean or Trump-r-us media or Alex Jones and the like.


    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Google Nancy Pelosi's discussion of the "wrap up smear". How many of these interactions and reinforcement of narratives fit the formula she describes?
    I did and I got this: https://apnews.com/article/fact-chec...r-257692857731
    Last edited by Warbler; July 7th, 2024 at 04:42 PM.

  4. #43
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    7,464
    Thanks
    2,746
    Thanked 2,618 Times in 1,527 Posts
    Rep Power
    19

    Default Re: Dangers to Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
    I assume you meant if he hypothetically proved it.
    Yes, that's why I used those exact words "hypothetically proved it". No need to assume.

    Quote Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
    As far as I know he didn't prove the election was stolen whatsoever.
    Correct. The subject is a hypothetical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
    As for the remedy, take it to court. Challenge the election legally until the Constitution.
    Your second sentence makes no sense.

    I notice you didn't provide the quote and context for your assertion that Trump will "set aside the Constitution". That is the pertinent topic and context.

    Quote Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
    I don't know. I am open to discussing amending the Constitution to deal with an already installed illegitimate President.

    I think the key to part of it is to try to LEGALLY prevent the installation of an illegitimate. Again if you think something bad happened in the election, challenge it in court.

    As far a I know multiple court cases were heard by multiple judges and none has stuck so far.
    The question remains how one remedies the hypothetical situation, when the Constitution is silent other than counting electoral votes and inauguration. Logically, one must set aside the results that were counted in accordance with the Constitution, and void the inauguration. Either would require setting aside the Constitution to some extent.

    You're moving goalposts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
    Either way, it is wrong. YOU DON'T SET ASIDE THE CONSTITUTION. NEVER. Setting aside the Constitution puts us on the road to ending our Democratic Republic.
    Perhaps, but you haven't presented your claim on what Trump said, the context of his statement, and what could be inferred from that - which remains the pertinent point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
    I don't think I've ever mentioned Hunter's laptop.
    More moving of goalposts. That's not the point.

    There can be no discussion if we aren't talking about the same thing.

    The question is about media and intelligence official lies surrounding Hunter's laptop, not what you have or haven't said on the matter.

    As Morell admitted, they knew it was not true. That's gaslighting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
    I am not convinced it was a hoax, even though Hillary was fined for possibly violating campaign finance law.
    The Steele Dossier was initiated and paid for by Hillary's campaign. It was a fabrication that lead to a 3 year and $30 million dollar investigation which found no collusion.

    Russia Collusion was another hoax. Another lie to gaslight people that Trump was "Putin's puppet" and other similar phrasing.

    Please don't dodge with "but he wasn't exonerated". That's not how American jurisprudence works. No one is ever exonerated. One is innocent until proven guilty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    The "fine people" hoax was recently admitted to be a hoax - by left-leaning Snopes, no less.
    link?
    No, Trump Did Not Call Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists 'Very Fine People'

    Biden even claimed that this was the reason he ran for the Presidency. He repeated the hoax several times. Numerous media personalities repeated this hoax several times. There are numerous video compilations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    How many years did the media lie to you, and claim Biden's cognitive decline wasn't real? Was it just "cheap fakes", as Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre recently claimed.
    the Press Secretary is not a member of the media. She works for the President, not a media organization. But I do agree they played down his cognitive decline. I agree you have to take what the mainstream media with a grain of salt. I do not deny that there is a left leaning bias in the mainstream media. I wish it were not so. But that doesn't mean I am going to turn to Conservative-r-us mean or Trump-r-us media or Alex Jones and the like.
    I did not say the press secretary was a member of the media. There are two sentences. The first refers to the media lying. The second refers to the Press Secretary.

    I'm not going to continue to entertain these sorts of disingenuous points, intentional or not.


    Quote Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Google Nancy Pelosi's discussion of the "wrap up smear". How many of these interactions and reinforcement of narratives fit the formula she describes?
    I did and I got this: https://apnews.com/article/fact-chec...r-257692857731
    No, that's a "fact check" that ignores Nancy's words; not Nancy's discussion of how the "wrap up smear" works. Those "fact checks" are more media gaslighting via straw men arguments.

    Her description of how it works (and both sides do it) is not out of context.

    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to dneal For This Useful Post:

    kazoolaw (July 7th, 2024)

  6. #44
    Senior Member Warbler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2024
    Posts
    946
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 37 Times in 37 Posts
    Rep Power
    1

    Default Re: Dangers to Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post

    Yes, that's why I used those exact words "hypothetically proved it". No need to assume.
    understood, I got confused was all.



    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
    As for the remedy, take it to court. Challenge the election legally until the Constitution.
    Your second sentence makes no sense.
    Sorry about that. I meant to say "Challenge the election legally under the Constitution." I have corrected my original post.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    I notice you didn't provide the quote and context for your assertion that Trump will "set aside the Constitution". That is the pertinent topic and context.
    I said I would provide the quote if needed:

    So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!
    If you want to provide any information you think pertinent to the quote, please I do.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
    I don't know. I am open to discussing amending the Constitution to deal with an already installed illegitimate President.

    I think the key to part of it is to try to LEGALLY prevent the installation of an illegitimate. Again if you think something bad happened in the election, challenge it in court.

    As far a I know multiple court cases were heard by multiple judges and none has stuck so far.
    The question remains how one remedies the hypothetical situation, when the Constitution is silent other than counting electoral votes and inauguration. Logically, one must set aside the results that were counted in accordance with the Constitution, and void the inauguration. Either would require setting aside the Constitution to some extent.

    You're moving goalposts.
    How am I moving the goalposts? I want to act within the law and not set it aside. You set the law aside you are asking for all sorts of troubles. There are many ways to challenge election results before inauguration. But after the inauguration? not much other than impeachment. I am willing to discuss amending the Constitution to deal with such a situation. But setting aside the Constitution? no.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
    Either way, it is wrong. YOU DON'T SET ASIDE THE CONSTITUTION. NEVER. Setting aside the Constitution puts us on the road to ending our Democratic Republic.
    Perhaps, but you haven't presented your claim on what Trump said, the context of his statement, and what could be inferred from that - which remains the pertinent point.
    I posted the quote above, like I said I was willing to do. if three is anything else you think I should know the about the context and what not, anything that might make a reason person think different about the quote, please tell me.



    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
    I don't think I've ever mentioned Hunter's laptop.
    More moving of goalposts. That's not the point.

    There can be no discussion if we aren't talking about the same thing.
    How is it moving the goal posts? I am just letting you know that is not what I was talking about.



    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    The question is about media and intelligence official lies surrounding Hunter's laptop, not what you have or haven't said on the matter.

    As Morell admitted, they knew it was not true. That's gaslighting.
    perhaps. I admit I don't know enough about Hunter's laptop to know for sure.


    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
    I am not convinced it was a hoax, even though Hillary was fined for possibly violating campaign finance law.
    The Steele Dossier was initiated and paid for by Hillary's campaign. It was a fabrication that lead to a 3 year and $30 million dollar investigation which found no collusion.

    Russia Collusion was another hoax. Another lie to gaslight people that Trump was "Putin's puppet" and other similar phrasing.
    She was fined for violating campaign finance law, the Hillary campaign may have initiated and paid for the dossier. It doesn't necessarily mean the dossier is false. I do admit the situation smells.


    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Please don't dodge with "but he wasn't exonerated". That's not how American jurisprudence works. No one is ever exonerated. One is innocent until proven guilty.
    that is how it works in the criminal court. The court of public opinion is another matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    The "fine people" hoax was recently admitted to be a hoax - by left-leaning Snopes, no less.
    link?
    No, Trump Did Not Call Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists 'Very Fine People'

    Biden even claimed that this was the reason he ran for the Presidency. He repeated the hoax several times. Numerous media personalities repeated this hoax several times. There are numerous video compilations.
    okay maybe what Trump said was misunderstood and he wasn't referring to neo-nazis and white supremacists.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    How many years did the media lie to you, and claim Biden's cognitive decline wasn't real? Was it just "cheap fakes", as Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre recently claimed.
    the Press Secretary is not a member of the media. She works for the President, not a media organization. But I do agree they played down his cognitive decline. I agree you have to take what the mainstream media with a grain of salt. I do not deny that there is a left leaning bias in the mainstream media. I wish it were not so. But that doesn't mean I am going to turn to Conservative-r-us mean or Trump-r-us media or Alex Jones and the like.
    I did not say the press secretary was a member of the media. There are two sentences. The first refers to the media lying. The second refers to the Press Secretary.

    I'm not going to continue to entertain these sorts of disingenuous points, intentional or not.
    you were discussing your claim that the media is lying to me and then you brought up a claim made by the Press Secretary. I am just not sure why you would bring that up? Instead, discuss lies made by the media itself. That was my point. I was not trying to be disingenuous.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Google Nancy Pelosi's discussion of the "wrap up smear". How many of these interactions and reinforcement of narratives fit the formula she describes?
    I did and I got this: https://apnews.com/article/fact-chec...r-257692857731
    No, that's a "fact check" that ignores Nancy's words; not Nancy's discussion of how the "wrap up smear" works. Those "fact checks" are more media gaslighting via straw men arguments.

    Her description of how it works (and both sides do it) is not out of context.

    You asked me to google Nancy Pelosi's discussion of the "wrap up smear" That fact check is what first came up. It didn't ignore Nancy's words, it just said the words were taken out of context. It was claimed that it was said that Pelosi was talking about how Democrats leak a lie to the media when what she was really talking about was how Republicans use the tactic against Democrats. I don't know think the AP is lying through its' teeth, but if you believe otherwise, I can't help that.

    btw, it is easy to say that any thing from the media that one doesn't like that is critical of the candidate you support is a lie.

  7. #45
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    7,464
    Thanks
    2,746
    Thanked 2,618 Times in 1,527 Posts
    Rep Power
    19

    Default Re: Dangers to Democracy

    Lest the sidebar and quote formatting get any further out of control... Let's reorient to your original point, now that you have provided the quote. For the sake of argument, I'll accept that it is accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Trump
    So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!
    Earlier (post 39) you said this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Warbler
    What about the talk of setting aside the Constitution? I can post the quote if necessary.
    Clearly he does not say anything about "setting aside the Constitution", in some dictatorial context. What is it you believe he is saying?
    Last edited by dneal; July 7th, 2024 at 06:32 PM. Reason: quote format
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  8. #46
    Senior Member Warbler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2024
    Posts
    946
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 37 Times in 37 Posts
    Rep Power
    1

    Default Re: Dangers to Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Lest the sidebar and quote formatting get any further out of control... Let's reorient to your original point, now that you have provided the quote. For the sake of argument, I'll accept that it is accurate.
    because I know you don't trust the liberal media, I got the quote from a fox news article. I googled "Trump setting aside the Constitution" and the fox news article was one of the things that came up. Here is a link to the article. https://www.foxnews.com/shows/media-...set-off-alarms


    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post

    Earlier (post 39) you said this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Warbler
    What about the talk of setting aside the Constitution? I can post the quote if necessary.
    Clearly he does not say anything about "setting aside the Constitution", in some dictatorial context. What is it you believe he is saying?
    He said in part of the quote "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution" (emphasis mine) If you ask me the part I bolded = setting aside the Constitution. Not sure how else to read it.

  9. #47
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    7,464
    Thanks
    2,746
    Thanked 2,618 Times in 1,527 Posts
    Rep Power
    19

    Default Re: Dangers to Democracy

    I'm not asking how else to read it, I'm asking you to state how you read it; which you still haven't done.

    What does "setting aside the Constitution" mean, specifically? What do you think Trump intends to do?
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  10. #48
    Senior Member Warbler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2024
    Posts
    946
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 37 Times in 37 Posts
    Rep Power
    1

    Default Re: Dangers to Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    I'm not asking how else to read it, I'm asking you to state how you read it; which you still haven't done.

    What does "setting aside the Constitution" mean, specifically? What do you think Trump intends to do?
    I think I did tell you how I read it, I said I thought the part I bolded equaled setting aside the Constitution. I am not sure what else you want.

    As what does setting aside the Constitution mean, I believe it means ignoring the Constitution, ignoring the Constitution, deliberately violating it, rendering it meaningless, voiding the Constitution, saying we are not longer going to abide by the Constitution, we are just going to what we want, saying the Constitution no longer applies. That sort of thing

    What do you think setting aside the Constitution means?

  11. #49
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    7,464
    Thanks
    2,746
    Thanked 2,618 Times in 1,527 Posts
    Rep Power
    19

    Default Re: Dangers to Democracy

    I think you didn't tell me how you read it. I think you might be insinuating or implying, but I'm asking for something clear. Something unambiguous - which you haven't provided.

    If you think Trump intends to set aside the Constitution and become a dictator, ending our democracy (as some pundits phrase it); just say so. It would also be helpful if you offered the means by which he could do something like this (or whatever it is you aren't clearly saying yet).
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  12. #50
    Senior Member Warbler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2024
    Posts
    946
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 37 Times in 37 Posts
    Rep Power
    1

    Default Re: Dangers to Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    I think you didn't tell me how you read it.
    what I said in the previous post is how I read it.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    I think you might be insinuating or implying, but I'm asking for something clear. Something unambiguous - which you haven't provided.
    I don't know what you want of me. I said what I thought the words in the quote meant.


    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    If you think Trump intends to set aside the Constitution and become a dictator, ending our democracy (as some pundits phrase it); just say so.
    It could be. He did say " . . . A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution." Now, if all rules, regulation, and articles, even those found in the Constitution were terminated, what else would you have but a dictatorship?


    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    It would also be helpful if you offered the means by which he could do something like this (or whatever it is you aren't clearly saying yet).
    I don't know. But democracies have turned into dictatorships in the past. See the Roman Republic. See the Weimar Republic. What if Republicans extremely loyal to Trump end up in control of the House and Senate? What if Trump picks a VP much more loyal to him than Pence was? Now Consider the US Supreme Court(whom just ruled in his favor on the immunity case) 3 of the justices own him for their jobs, one the justice might be bribed with trips whose wife was clearly a supported of the "stop the steal: movement and another judge had his flag upside down during Jan of 2021. Now consider all the people loyal enough to him to commit crimes and violence (see Jan 6). It is not really out of the realm of possibility. But I do hope the safe guards in the Constitution would be enough to stop him.

    Now how about you tell me what you think Trump meant by the quote? What you think those words mean? How I am I suppose to interpret them? Do you really think they are the words a man that intends to abide by and respect the Constitution and treat it as the Supreme law of the land?
    Last edited by Warbler; July 7th, 2024 at 08:12 PM.

  13. #51
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    7,464
    Thanks
    2,746
    Thanked 2,618 Times in 1,527 Posts
    Rep Power
    19

    Default Re: Dangers to Democracy

    Do you agree with this characterization of your position?

    "Trump intends to completely void the Constitution and become a dictator."
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  14. #52
    Senior Member Warbler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2024
    Posts
    946
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 37 Times in 37 Posts
    Rep Power
    1

    Default Re: Dangers to Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    You still haven't said in a simple and clear sentence what you think Trump meant, and what he intends to do.
    I've tried and yet you haven't answered any of my questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Let me help with an example sentence. You can even use it directly and fill in the blanks.

    I think Trump was saying that ___________, and he intends to ___________. He will accomplish this by ___________.
    I think Trump was saying that in the situation the massive fraud he thinks exists, the law and Constitution should just be ignored and the rule of law suspended , "set aside" to do what he thinks his right.

    From what he said, I think he intends, if he possibly can, to suspend the rule of law and the Constitution and/or ignore same to do whatever he wants and go after those that oppose him. (He certainly didn't sound like someone that intends to abide by and obey the Constitution.) Perhaps he will argue that he be granted emergency powers, given the desperate situation he will claim the country is in.

    I don't know exactly how how he will accomplish it, but I am sure he will try to make use of a Republican(republicans loyal to him) controlled House and Senate and Supreme Court Justices that own him for their jobs and one whom is possibly being bribed by trips whose wife is clearly loyal to Trump and another whose flag was upside down in Jan 2021. He also intends to make use of the ordinary people who worship him and the mob that did violence on Jan 6. I don't think he will care about the safe guards built into the Constitution or nor the rights listed therein.

    The last two assumes the he wins the election. I don't think he will be able to do anything if he loses.

    Now, why don't you answer my questions and answer the same question you put to me?
    Last edited by Warbler; July 7th, 2024 at 09:42 PM.

  15. #53
    Senior Member Warbler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2024
    Posts
    946
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 37 Times in 37 Posts
    Rep Power
    1

    Default Re: Dangers to Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Do you agree with this characterization of your position?

    "Trump intends to completely void the Constitution and become a dictator."
    I am not sure what happened to the post I replied to in post #52.

    It is more that possible he intends to render the Constitution null and void and possibly become a dictator.

  16. #54
    Senior Member Warbler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2024
    Posts
    946
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 37 Times in 37 Posts
    Rep Power
    1

    Default Re: Dangers to Democracy

    Now I have tried and tried and tried to answer you questions, HOW BOUT YOU TRY TO ANSWER MINE?

  17. #55
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    7,464
    Thanks
    2,746
    Thanked 2,618 Times in 1,527 Posts
    Rep Power
    19

    Default Re: Dangers to Democracy

    I deleted my “fill in the blank” example and posted something more simple for you to agree with or clarify. It seems I was too late, but it also seems like you agree with the characterization.

    Remember when the media told you he wouldn’t leave the White House? HERE is just one example from The Atlantic, titled “What Would Happen If Trump Refused to Leave Office?”

    They gaslight you then. They gaslight you into believing that Trump supporters staged an “armed insurrection”, although they left all those assault rifles in their arsenals at home.

    They’re gaslighting you now. How long do you think a man who is almost 80 can remain a dictator? How long do you think a country with 400 million guns would tolerate a dictator? How long do you think the courts, congress or military would allow a Trump dictatorship?

    I’m sorry your media did that to you.
    Last edited by dneal; July 7th, 2024 at 10:00 PM.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  18. #56
    Senior Member Warbler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2024
    Posts
    946
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 37 Times in 37 Posts
    Rep Power
    1

    Default Re: Dangers to Democracy

    *sigh* last time please answer your own question:

    I think Trump was saying that ___________, and he intends to ___________. He will accomplish this by ___________.

    If you don't think "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution." means voiding and ignoring about the Constitution and perhaps becoming a dictator, just what do you think he meant by the words he said?
    Last edited by Warbler; July 7th, 2024 at 10:09 PM.

  19. #57
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    7,464
    Thanks
    2,746
    Thanked 2,618 Times in 1,527 Posts
    Rep Power
    19

    Default Re: Dangers to Democracy

    I think Trump was making a joke about "being a dictator for a day".

    I think Trump thinks that a fraudulent election requires that no inauguration moves forward until the legitimate result is identified, even if that means delaying the Constitutional dates.

    Now I'll reiterate my questions:

    How long do you think a man who is almost 80 can remain a dictator?

    How long do you think a country with 400 million guns would tolerate a dictator?

    How long do you think the courts, congress or military would allow a Trump dictatorship?

    Thinking Trump will void the Constitution and appoint himself dictator is crazy talk. It requires a bizarre view of "Trumpians". Trump supporters love the country and the Constitution, and would turn on Trump in a second if he tried such a thing, and that's what all the guns are for.

    But I'm not gaslit by the media, and I don't suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  20. #58
    Senior Member Warbler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2024
    Posts
    946
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 37 Times in 37 Posts
    Rep Power
    1

    Default Re: Dangers to Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    I think Trump was making a joke about "being a dictator for a day".
    I wasn't talking about that quote, was talking about this:

    A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    I think Trump thinks that a fraudulent election requires that no inauguration moves forward until the legitimate result is identified, even if that means delaying the Constitutional dates.
    Would that be legal or Constitutional? If not, then he is talking of ignoring or setting aside the Constitution. Once you start down that path, once you open Pandora's box, there is no going back. It would just be slow walk toward the Constitution being a meaningless piece of paper.


    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Now I'll reiterate my questions:

    How long do you think a man who is almost 80 can remain a dictator?
    possibly for a while if he stays healthy and sane. People are living a lot long these days. He might pass it on to his son or another family member. That sort of thing happened with dictatorships.


    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    How long do you think a country with 400 million guns would tolerate a dictator
    the overwhelming majority of those that own guns in this country are Conservation Trump supporters and worshipers. Even if they wouldn't tolerate it, do you realize the kind of bloodshed the would occur if a President turned dictator had to be violently removed from power?


    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    How long do you think the courts, congress or military would allow a Trump dictatorship?
    awhile if Republicans loyal to Trump won enough seats to control the house and Senate and the the US Supreme Court justices I talked about prior, support him and if he is able to pick a yes man for his vp.

    the military is another question. They tend to have a high regard for the Constitution, but on the other hand if Trump won, he would be their Commander in Chief. I am not sure which way they would go. But if the military was the only way to remove Trump, again massive blood shed would result.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Thinking Trump will void the Constitution and appoint himself dictator is crazy talk.
    If it is, so is "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution."


    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    It requires a bizarre view of "Trumpians". Trump supporters love the country and the Constitution, and would turn on Trump in a second if he tried such a thing, and that's what all the guns are for.
    for what I see, and considering Jan 6, it seems to me many of them love Trump more than the country and the Constitution.



    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    But I'm not gaslit by the media,
    is it possible you are gaslit by Conservative media?


    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    and I don't suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
    Here we go again with this broken record. *sigh*

  21. #59
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    7,464
    Thanks
    2,746
    Thanked 2,618 Times in 1,527 Posts
    Rep Power
    19

    Default Re: Dangers to Democracy

    is it possible you are gaslit by Conservative media?
    No, because I don't get news from conservative media. I understand information operations, and track narratives from several sides.

    Here's a basic construct: There are two echo-chambers. One red, and one blue. If you only see one, you're in the other.

    Here we go again with this broken record. *sigh*
    Your only rebuttal is a poor argument from ridicule - a logical fallacy. Telling...

    You can see some of the hoaxes your media perpetrated, as the narratives fall apart; yet you cling to others instead of increasing your skepticism. How does the saying go? "Fool me once..." and all that?

    You think Trump will be a dictator (because that's what one narrative is), but you can't see how he would do it. Perhaps if you can't see how it would happen, basic reason should lead you to reassess the premise.

    Your media has gaslit you into thinking Trump will be a dictator and will void the Constitution. That's deranged thinking with regard to Trump. A syndrome. You're just in denial about it.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  22. #60
    Senior Member Warbler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2024
    Posts
    946
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 37 Times in 37 Posts
    Rep Power
    1

    Default Re: Dangers to Democracy

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post

    No, because I don't get news from conservative media.
    hmm, makes me wonder where you do get your news from. I doubt you get it from the mainstream media which you clearly don't trust.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    I understand information operations, and track narratives from several sides.
    information operations? Does tracking narratives from several sides, mean that you listen to both mainstream media and conservative media?


    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Here's a basic construct: There are two echo-chambers. One red, and one blue. If you only see one, you're in the other.
    and you think I only see one echo-chamber. not exactly true.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Here we go again with this broken record. *sigh*
    Your only rebuttal is a poor argument from ridicule - a logical fallacy. Telling...
    I rebutted one logical fallacy (ad hominem) with another. At least I didn't respond with TWS.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    You can see some of the hoaxes your media perpetrated, as the narratives fall apart; yet you cling to others instead of increasing your skepticism. How does the saying go? "Fool me once..." and all that?
    I don't think it is a hoax that Trump said "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution" and I can think a reasonable interpretation of those words that doesn't automatically disqualify Trump for the Presidency.

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    You think Trump will be a dictator (because that's what one narrative is), but you can't see how he would do it.


    Perhaps if you can't see how it would happen, basic reason should lead you to reassess the premise.
    There is a difference between not knowing exactly how he would go about doing it and whether no it is plausible he would make the attempt. In any case, the quote disqualifies him for the oval office.


    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Your media has gaslit you into thinking Trump will be a dictator and will void the Constitution.
    Nope, what he said has me thinking it. Also put in either a refusal or failure of Trump to clear up what he said and there you go.



    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    That's deranged thinking with regard to Trump. A syndrome. You're just in denial about it.
    more ad hominem.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •