Trump just can't help himself

[black dog]

 

[This_person]

C'mon.... you know that is just not true. That, or... you didn't read what was posted by Chris.

Here's what I read Chris to say:

What does Kyle add? CPUSA? Gilligan? ... My issue is your criticisms not being equal.
… [W]hat I'm saying is that challenging is not reciprocated to anyone on "your side" and I don't feel like replying. Simple as that.
… Why should I be treated differently?

While, like virtually every single one of us (including Chris) who posts in the politics and news sections regularly, the three to whom Chris referenced do post insults and memes - goodness knows I post an awful lot of both of those, and you're no stranger to the insult yourself, just like the rest of us - they do not add no substance, too. There, I defended them AND Chris all in one run-on sentence.

The rest of Chris' post is about being treated the same. No one at all treats Chris like Tranny treats EVERYONE, or like Tranny gets treated by pretty much everyone. As Kyle said above, most people get treated "accordingly", not "equally". My question to Chris was not insulting or disrespectful in any way because Chris and I seem to have an unspoken agreement to simply discuss a topic, not be disrespectful. Then, he insulted me by dismissing me through ignoring me and then again by bragging about ignoring me. I responded "accordingly" by calling him an ass, to discuss another day on another topic.

Chris took that and made an unprovoked attack on at least those three mentioned above, myself, and Vrai. I still don't see where I've said anything untrue or misrepresenting Chris' position.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I'm not going to protect or defend you from them, or them from you.

I didn't ask them a question, I asked you a question - respectfully - about a post you made.

This, for me, is not about Tranny or any other poster on here. I did not ask you to defend their posts, or them to defend yours. I asked if you agreed with the words of your own post, assuming it was a cut and paste from elsewhere.

If you can't or won't do that, that's fine. You told me you ignored me, I called you an ass for acting like that, and we were done as far as I'm concerned. But, don't make it about any other poster, because no other poster was involved.

If you refuse to have a conversation on your own merits with someone who wants to have a conversation on their own merits, that's your choice and I support it, dickish as it may be on a discussion forum. But, don't drag in your beefs with anyone else, because, again, I'm not defending you from them or them from you.

This is nothing about "defending". I don't need you to be my white knight. I'm telling you that you wanting conversations doesn't apply equally to everyone. I'm saying that your intellectual arguments don't apply equally to everyone. I believe you've admitted that the folks I mention don't actually contribute and that's why you don't ask them question after question about a topic they post or why you don't ask them to expound on their thoughts, seeking empirical data to back up those claims.

I have no desire to constantly have this back and forth with you. Going over every.single.thing you can think of relating to a topic. It's tiring to try and converse with someone about a topic that takes days or weeks to finish.

If anyone would know how to spell correctly....

It would be me.

 

[Kyle]

I have no desire to constantly have this back and forth with you. Going over every.single.thing you can think of relating to a topic. It's tiring to try and converse with someone about a topic that takes days or weeks to finish.

TP, I'll help you out and translate this for you.... "Just shut-up and agree with me since I'm the single All-Knowing, All-Seeing Expert on every subject!"

 

[Gilligan]

Wow. You seem nice. Yes the intelligence community admitted it changed it's policy on whistleblower complaints in May 2018,

I liked this part. Nothing smells bad here....

Despite the form changes and the requirement for possession of first-hand information, the ICIG statement admits the Ukraine whistleblower filed an outdated report and checked that he or she had first-hand knowledge of the experience, which the complaint itself contradicts.

 

[Gilligan]

TP, I'll help you out and translate this for you.... "Just shut-up and agree with me since I'm the single All-Knowing, All-Seeing Expert on every subject!"

All those bong hits sap stamina too....

 

[This_person]

I'm telling you that you wanting conversations doesn't apply equally to everyone. I'm saying that your intellectual arguments don't apply equally to everyone. I believe you've admitted that the folks I mention don't actually contribute and that's why you don't ask them question after question about a topic they post or why you don't ask them to expound on their thoughts, seeking empirical data to back up those claims.

How I speak with anyone else is really none of your fukking business, just like how you speak with anyone else is none of mine. You're right, I don't treat everyone equally. I did not admit the folks you mentioned don't actually contribute - I speak with the ones you mentioned just like I speak with you. When they post something with which I disagree, I say so. When they post something I challenge, I challenge them. Now, MidnightSpanker or Tranny or Sappy or a plethora of others - no, I don't discuss with them like I do with you, because they aren't worth it.

I have no desire to constantly have this back and forth with you. Going over every.single.thing you can think of relating to a topic. It's tiring to try and converse with someone about a topic that takes days or weeks to finish.

I asked you if you think your post's words accurately reflected the tweet you posted. If that is just too much, it's just too much. I get it. What you posted had nothing to do with the tweets, and that's annoying to have to defend. I get your position. No need to be an ass about it is all.

 

[black dog]

TP, I'll help you out and translate this for you.... "Just shut-up and agree with me since I'm the single All-Knowing, All-Seeing Expert on every subject!"

****ing Millennials.......
Honey BooBoo weeps....

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I asked you if you think your post's words accurately reflected the tweet you posted.

This is the problem. You folks think I was "accurately reflecting" the tweet. All I said was, Trump is not important enough to cause a Civil War.

And you asked me a question based on your incorrect interpretation of what I posted. I have zero, none, nada, desire to go down your rabbit hole about something you misinterpreted to begin with.

 

[black dog]

All those bong hits sap stamina too....

I've read a Mark Eden will help with that.

 

[MiddleGround]

I asked you if you think your post's words accurately reflected the tweet you posted. If that is just too much, it's just too much. I get it. What you posted had nothing to do with the tweets, and that's annoying to have to defend. I get your position. No need to be an ass about it is all.

I believe part of his point is that this seems to happen on an extremely larger scale to those who do not have like-minded opinions of the hive mentality that is prominent here. Not adding you to that group.

I have been in long discussions with you in the past. I will admit that it does get taxing going over every little detail even those that do not really have any bearing like it is a constant search for a 'gotcha... you're wrong' moment. Even when presented with evidence that proves the point I made, your response is a passive aggressive acknowledgement that you may still be correct. It all goes back to some people's unwillingness to admit even the slightest possibility of being incorrect.

 

[Yooper]

Then arguably violates the Constitution.

Two comments.

First, to say he "violates" the Constitution is to just another case of hyperbole to make what Trump said seem "criminal." But the purpose of the Clause you cited is to keep Schiff, in this case, immune from prosecution. It "arguably" doesn't prevent the executive or the judicial from necessarily making comments like Trump did. In fact, we see comments being made all the time; they're just phrased in a more clever, more ambiguous way so that one could get away with making them without accusations being made against the comment maker. Think "passive-aggressive." But another reason folks are getting their knickers in a twist is that it's Trump making the comments (yet again another case of #OrangemanBad). Do the same (or similar) rules apply to this idiot group of Congresspersons?

Second, speaking of "arguably" the CRS doc you posted via the FAS link makes the point:

The Clause does not, however, turn Members into “supercitizens” by providing them with a blanket exemption from legal liability for any and all illegal acts.44 Rather, the Clause immunizes or protects only a certain class of actions, known as “legislative acts,” that are undertaken as part of the legislative process.45 Not all actions taken by a Member in the course of his congressional duties are considered legislative acts. In fact, many acts that may otherwise be considered “official,” in that they relate to governmental duties, are not covered by the protections of the Clause.46 The Clause protects only those acts that are an “integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes” through which Members engage either in “the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation” or “other matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House.”47 The legislative act limitation and other aspects of the Clause are discussed in greater detail below.48

My sense is that Schiff's asinine comments while "reading" the transcript (later stated by Schiff to be "parody") do not clearly fall under the category of "legislative act" in that he read something demonstrably false into the congressional record without stating at the time he was making a parody reading. Again, my sense (not being a lawyer, but someone trying to wind my way through the arcane world of "parliamentary procedure") is that Schiff opened himself up to legitimate criticism by doing what he did. Or are you saying that Schiff does, in fact, get "supercitizen" status?

Schiff wants folks to believe his immunity is absolute. It isn't. Bottom line, my sense is that Schiff's comments were outside the protections of this Clause and thus were fair game by the Executive.

Finally, a comment regarding how this thread (and many others) evolved. Yes, the back and forth here on the forum (and just about anywhere) are filled with silly comments. So if you want serious discussion post a serious thread. To start off the way you did invites "return fire" (not saying a serious well-thought out post won't get "return fire," but one can only control what one does...).

This is a shame because far too often potential great threads are ruined by an initial post that begs the question in a too apparently partisan manner. Rarely does a thread start with a thoughtful question or a well-stated position; more often than not the thread is started/written as a taunt. One forum member comes immediately to mind: posts interesting subjects used solely as a means to flog and provide an excuse to engage in ad hominem. It ain't limited to this supposedly right-leaning forum; the same takes place - unfortunately - EVERYWHERE. Sure, some folks see "middle school food fighting" as fun, but then we wonder why it's so hard for us citizens to have civil discussion these days?

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[vraiblonde]

This is the problem. You folks think I was "accurately reflecting" the tweet. All I said was, Trump is not important enough to cause a Civil War.

And you asked me a question based on your incorrect interpretation of what I posted. I have zero, none, nada, desire to go down your rabbit hole about something you misinterpreted to begin with.

You know what I love about Awpitt (one of the things, anyway)? He can admit when he was wrong. When he shares information that is false or makes a statement based on that false information, he will say that he was wrong. And we all understand it's not him that was wrong, but the information source that was wrong. Or when he misspeaks because he misread something - he'll admit it so we can all move on.

Be like Awpitt.

 

[MiddleGround]

You know what I love about Awpitt (one of the things, anyway)? He can admit when he was wrong. When he shares information that is false or makes a statement based on that false information, he will say that he was wrong. And we all understand it's not him that was wrong, but the information source that was wrong. Or when he misspeaks because he misread something - he'll admit it so we can all move on.

Be like Awpitt.

Awpitt is a rare find around here...

 

[This_person]

This is the problem. You folks think I was "accurately reflecting" the tweet. All I said was, Trump is not important enough to cause a Civil War.

What you said was:

Starts by assuming he's important enough to start a civil war and qoutes a Pastor that was on Fox News.

Now, when you say he "starts by assuming", that's not saying that YOU don't think he's important enough, that's you saying HE THINKS he's important enough.

I asked if the tweet you posted justifies your assumption that he "starts by assuming he's important enough to start a civil war."

I'm just going by your words. Maybe you think you said something else?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

To start off the way you did invites "return fire"

In other words, the dick replies are solely based on how the dicks interpret my first post.

Let's look at what words I typed in the OP of this thread.

Starts by assuming he's important enough to start a civil war and quotes a Pastor that was on Fox News.

Then arguably violates the Constitution.

"How?" you say? The speech and debate clause of the Constitution.

For any Speech or Debate in either House, [members of Congress] shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Here's a paper on that clause if anyone is interested:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45043.pdf

"Assuming", followed by a factual statement.
"Arguably", followed by a factual clause.
Posts paper about that clause from a reputable source.



You think this thread started out in a way that warrants the replies herein?

 

[black dog]

I'm wrong all the time, Just not on here. Just Say'in....

 

[This_person]

I believe part of his point is that this seems to happen on an extremely larger scale to those who do not have like-minded opinions of the hive mentality that is prominent here. Not adding you to that group.

I have been in long discussions with you in the past. I will admit that it does get taxing going over every little detail even those that do not really have any bearing like it is a constant search for a 'gotcha... you're wrong' moment. Even when presented with evidence that proves the point I made, your response is a passive aggressive acknowledgement that you may still be correct. It all goes back to some people's unwillingness to admit even the slightest possibility of being incorrect.

Can't argue any of that. I can be a stickler for detail, and often when anyone thinks they've "proven" a point, they've merely found another opinion that supports their opinion, and no one's point is "proven", just supported.

But, my point in response is, "who the hell cares?" We don't need to treat everyone the same, so why set that as a standard?

 

[MiddleGround]

I asked if the tweet you posted justifies your assumption that he "starts by assuming he's important enough to start a civil war."

Why would he include the tweet if it didn't justify the assumption? Whether it does or does not... this is not a good question to ask. Common sense.

[Here is a picture of a blue crayon. I assume the crayon is blue]

Why would you ask if posting a picture of a blue crayon would justify the assumption that the crayon is blue?

 

[This_person]

In other words, the dick replies are solely based on how the dicks interpret my first post.

There's no interpretation of "starts off by assuming" - that's the speaker saying another speaker is actually assuming something. YOU were saying TRUMP is assuming something.

My question to you is whether you thought his tweet justified YOU stating as fact that Trump assumes he is important enough to start a civil war. I was asking you to justify your statement, explaining how the tweet justifies what you stated as fact - that Trump assumes that about himself.