America's favorite idiot wants to suspend the constitution

[Cow Poke]

If anybody is being clever here, it's ox. He can claim that Trump really meant whatever he wants, and nobody can disprove it.

But we can prove an actual misquote as the jumping off point. And I'm not claiming it was intentional - I believe it's what Jim "saw".

[firstfloor]

Would somebody willing to contemplate the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, for any reason, be allowed to take the oath of office of the POTUS?

I think will be efforts to disqualify him.

[Mountain Man]

But we can prove an actual misquote as the jumping off point. And I'm not claiming it was intentional - I believe it's what Jim "saw".

The problem comes when we quote Trump's actual words, or present a plausible alternative interpretation, yet ox will insist that only his uncharitable interpretation is the correct one. He is intent on seeing Trump in the worst light possible and refuses to even consider budging from that position.

[Cow Poke]

Would somebody willing to contemplate the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, for any reason, be allowed to take the oath of office of the POTUS?

"Be allowed"? What would disallow him?

I think will be efforts to disqualify him.

How? Unless he breaks a law, the best way to "disqualify" him would be not to allow him to win the primary, but if he does, not to elect him as POTUS.

[Mountain Man]

Would somebody willing to contemplate the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, for any reason, be allowed to take the oath of office of the POTUS?

I think will be efforts to disqualify him.

Oh, you mean someone like Barack Obama?

[2014]Sounding more like a third-world dictator than a U.S. president who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, Obama announced that he would no longer wait for Congress or legislation to impose his radical agenda to “fundamentally transform” America. Instead, in January 14 remarks about making 2014 a “year of action,” Obama declared that his administration would expand its rule-by-decree machinations through the use of even more anti-constitutional “executive orders” and “executive actions.”

https://thenewamerican.com/obama-vow...ule-by-decree/

[oxmixmudd]

J6 was bad but no worse than much of the rioting we've seen from the left over the years. In order to claim otherwise you are forced to chuck a huge chunk of history down a memory hole and hope nobody notices.

This is another of the gaslighting sort of denial attempts fostered by right wing media sources. A violent uprising whose purpose is to subvert the normal workings of the government is an insurrection. It is what the violence is trying to accomplish, not its amplitude, that determines whether it is an insurrection.

This particular insurrection was fomentted by and on the behalf of a sitting president and his desire to subvert the legal loss of an election, and it happened in the US Capitol.

These simple realities make it the most serious event of its kind since at least the Civil War.

If you have any respect for this nation and its constitution, please stop participating in the denial of that simple reality.

[Cow Poke]

This is another of the gaslighting

This appears to be a common theme now.

sort of denial attempts fostered by right wing media sources.

I don't believe any of us have failed to condemn the violence.

A violent uprising whose purpose is to subvert the normal workings of the government is an insurrection.

Do you honestly believe that they intended to overthrow the government, Jim?
(I withdraw the question, it's obvious you do)

It is what the violence is trying to accomplish, not its amplitude, that determines whether it is an insurrection.

It was a monumental failure, pretty much universally condemned, and that pretty much speaks to the planning and organization, or lack thereof.

[oxmixmudd]

Oh, you mean someone like Barack Obama?

[2014]Sounding more like a third-world dictator than a U.S. president who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, Obama announced that he would no longer wait for Congress or legislation to impose his radical agenda to “fundamentally transform” America. Instead, in January 14 remarks about making 2014 a “year of action,” Obama declared that his administration would expand its rule-by-decree machinations through the use of even more anti-constitutional “executive orders” and “executive actions.”

https://thenewamerican.com/obama-vow...ule-by-decree/

Despite what your irratonal hatred of the man causes you ti imagine,, nothing Obama did even comes close to what Trump has done in terms of its illegality, violation of principle, or danger to the stability and security of our nation.

[Mountain Man]

Despite what your irratonal hatred of the man causes you ti imagine,, nothing Obama did even comes close to what Trump has done in terms of its illegality, violation of principle, or danger to the stability and security of our nation.

Nice projection, ox. I don't hate Obama.

[oxmixmudd]

This appears to be a common theme now.

It is indeed one of most the common tack and theme of rightwing denial attempts. It has been the theme since Trump took office. But i was also pretty sure that in this reply you'd start trying the berate my use of the term ... just sayin

I don't believe any of us have failed to condemn the violence.

On the contrary. The failure is both complete and continuous, with the continued denial of its danger and form the most recent examples of the same

Do you honestly believe that they intended to overthrow the government, Jim?
(I withdraw the question, it's obvious you do)

In the sense of preventing the certification of the votes and installing the losing candidate illegally - yes.

It was a monumental failure, pretty much universally condemned, and that pretty much speaks to the planning and organization, or lack thereof.

Thankfully it did fail. But if by that you mean there was never any danger of it succeeding, or that Trump's continued lies about it do not present a continuing danger to the nation, you are sorely mistaken.

[oxmixmudd]

Nice projection, ox. I don't hate Obama.

You do, you just don't understand what hate looks like when it is you doing the hating.

[firstfloor]

"Be allowed"? What would disallow him?



How? Unless he breaks a law, the best way to "disqualify" him would be not to allow him to win the primary, but if he does, not to elect him as POTUS.

I would avoid that risk if possible.

I am asking whether a legal challenge could be brought to disqualify his candidacy because his remarks are incompatible with the oath of office, and therefore he demonstrates that he is unfit to take the oath. In short, he proves by his comments that he cannot be trusted to honor a future oath of office.

He puts his own interests above those of the country he would wish to, not serve, but rule. Do you really let voters decide that possible outcome?

There may be experience in other public office cases where someone has been disqualified in this way.

Mind-you, I don’t think the American public are so stupid that they would elect someone who has clearly announced his corruption in this way, and appears to advocate for lawlessness.

[oxmixmudd]

I would avoid that risk if possible.

I am asking whether a legal challenge could be brought to disqualify his candidacy because his remarks are incompatible with the oath of office, and therefore he demonstrates that he is unfit to take the oath. In short, he proves by his comments that he cannot be trusted to honor a future oath of office.

He puts his own interests above those of the country he would wish to, not serve, but rule. Do you really let voters decide that possible outcome?

There may be experience in other public office cases where someone has been disqualified in this way.

Mind-you, I don’t think the American public are so stupid that they would elect someone who has clearly announced his corruption in this way, and appears to advocate for lawlessness.

Do you read the posts on this website? Nearly half the American public is indeed stupid enough to elect someone who has clearly announced his corruption in this way. Some just dont care because their hatred of liberals runs so deep, but the others, they just keep pretending he 'didn't really mean it' or 'it's not a deal breaker'

[CivilDiscourse]

I would avoid that risk if possible.

I am asking whether a legal challenge could be brought to disqualify his candidacy because his remarks are incompatible with the oath of office, and therefore he demonstrates that he is unfit to take the oath. In short, he proves by his comments that he cannot be trusted to honor a future oath of office.

He puts his own interests above those of the country he would wish to, not serve, but rule. Do you really let voters decide that possible outcome?

There may be experience in other public office cases where someone has been disqualified in this way.

Mind-you, I don’t think the American public are so stupid that they would elect someone who has clearly announced his corruption in this way, and appears to advocate for lawlessness.

The short answer is no. The constitution sets out the requirements for president, and literally anyone, in any situation, can run for president if they meet those criteria. States have tried to add qualifications, but those attempts have been repeatedly defeated by the courts.

You might succeed at keeping him off the ballot in some states, but that doesn't prevent write-ins.

You might try the 14th, but that would require a conviction of Trump related to Jan 6th. Congress could try to pass a bill of attainder (something you agreed to in another thread), but the reality is that bills of attainder are EXPLICITLY disallowed in the constitution.

[Cerebrum123]

A bit overused in conservative circles. The context here is properly understanding His immediate importance while on the earth in light of criticism for the woman annointing him with expensive oil, not an admonition against caring too much about the poor in the general sense. But it is absolutely true that we need to understand that short of Jesus' return, our efforts will not be able to fully eliminate poverty.

That is the main point, but it points to something deeper as well. As long as humanity is in charge of this world you will have the rich and the poor. Even when Christ comes you will have those with a higher status among people due to what they chose to do with their lives. Equality of outcome is impossible, and attempting it is wrongheaded and begets a myriad of extremely negative consequences. Equality before the law and equality of opportunity are what we should be striving for. The former has been enacted for the most part, and the latter, while still unattainable doesn't have the negative effects that trying to force equality of outcome does and has beneficial results instead. The Covid lockdowns were not only disastrous to economies worldwide, but had negligible effects. The same goes for mask mandates, since most people were wearing masks that didn't contain much of anything and weren't preventing spread in any meaningful amounts. We are also seeing more and more that the masking policies have had negative consequences on children being able to learn basic things to help them understand other people due to the lack of seeing people's faces during their formative years.

Keep in mind I'm talking about conservative politics, but this is a good counter to my statements

That is a point of conservative politics. Politics does not apply only to proposed legislation, but to every facet of public life. I will admit politicians on the right, and even many proposed changes to legislation they have made are quite bad. Some of them will only benefit the rich, and make things more difficult for the poor, but this is also true of Democrat policies and politicians, even many that you defend. You have to look past the left/right false dichotomy that has been foisted on the public for years. Otherwise we won't put an end to this never ending cycle of abuse and oppression. The increase in polarization has been fueled by both sides, it keeps them in power, and us under their thumb.

So - yes I concede Jesus mentions sexual immorality in other contexts I was not thinking about. There are not too many of tgem, but more than 1.

Divorce is a bit of a special case, in that He is actually dealing with a significantly abuseive practice to women in that day where a husband could divorce a woman for any cause at all with a simple writ of divorce, leaving her stranded in a culture where she'd have a very hard time living diconnected from a husband or father. The point there is not to give instruction on sexual immorality itself.

But I should have been more precise, so you get the prize

The number of times an issue is mentioned has no bearing on how important it is, or how negative of an impact it might have. From the few time it is mentioned by Jesus we see that it is a serious sin, and one of the only things that allows for a divorce. Yes, men in that time were being abusive by just abandoning their wives for petty reasons, which could leave them to fend for themselves in a much harsher environment. In that time period and culture sexual immorality was something that was effectively agreed upon by the overall community as a really bad thing, so it wouldn't be brought up as much. Jesus making it one of the only, if not the only reason to allow a divorce shows that it is being considered quite serious. He also puts it on par with several of the things you despise Trump over, such as verbal abuse, slander, lies, etc.

I try to be rather precise in my wording(I don't always succeed). I kind of have to do that more than the average person since people twist what I say so often. Apparently my tone and facial expressions convey meanings I do not intend. It's rather intricately tied up with my Autism.

no, not just considered sinful. Just leaving open the fact that what is considered sinful, even wrt sexual activity, is somewhat cultural. E.g. Is kissing in public sinful? Depends on culture.

Things like kissing in public are not explicitly condemned in the Bible, so putting such acts on the same level is rather disingenuous. In fact, the old arguments against such things weren't that they were in and of themselves sinful, but that they lead to sin. Much like the Pharisees making rules to try and prevent people from getting even remotely close to sinning. Not only did this put a greater burden on people, but the Pharisees weren't willing to follow their own guidelines. It's actually one of my many problems with the right. They are gung-ho about censorship on things that are much more open to interpretation. Making certain things illegal that are sinful or harmful to a person can often make a worse criminal market for said things too making them even more dangerous for society. The left has shown this side recently by becoming a mirror image of the "Satanic Panic" mentality, just with left wing buzzwords.

yes. And yet Jesus chose not to condemn either the woman at the well or the woman caught in adultery. Don't try to extrapolate my statements beyond what they address directly. I'm not making any direct valuations on what is or is not sexual sin. That is not my point nor the purpose of my point.

Yet you conclude Trump was inciting people to insurrection on January 6th when he explicitly told them to be peaceful. Your statements are much, much more ambiguous than his and very much imply the conclusion I reached. Telling people they have to go with a very specific reading of your words while going and reading a contrary "deeper meaning" into the words of others isn't consistent.

Jumping to an incorrect conclusion. This thread is about Trump's call to abandon the constitution and put himself back in power, and the Republicans prostitution of themselves at his feet in ignoring the consequences of such an overt violation of his oath of office.That can't be extrapolated to 'my side' being the democrats or the sum of their policies.

I have consistently seen you handwave away the abuses of the left, and only go after Trump and the right. Many times under very false understandings of what is being said or done. Joe Biden has done everything you claim to hate Trump for and more, yet you've given him a pass every time. His inappropriate touching of young girls, his inappropriate activities with regards to White House staff, the credible accusations of rape, his numerous racist remarks etc. were all brushed aside by you. When you consistently demonize one side, while covering for and giving a pass to another that shows your bias for everyone to see.

I'm quite aware that these issues are at the top of the list of differences between Democrats and Republicans. And that many of the trans policies specifically are seen as dangerous to and abusive of children.

That's because they are dangerous to children, especially with the level of indoctrination happening now. The 4,000% rise in people identifying as "trans*", and the huge surge in detransitioners who have had their bodies permanently damaged prove this is very far reaching and very dangerous to people who often don't know any better.

What refusal? Tell me about it

You really haven't been paying attention to many of the posts directed at you, have you? Remember those kids in cages at the border? Those cages were made and employed by the Obama administration. There are also reasons for the situation that go beyond people just trying to be cruel. When you have thousands of people flooding the border, many carrying children with them, you need a place for them to stay while things can be sorted out. Not only that, but due to the fact that the drug cartels deal in human trafficking they have to try and make sure the people who came with the children really are their parents. Despite the known past dangers of illegal immigration Democrats are fine with it so long as they can get more votes. It's even more dangerous when you consider Covid 19 had been exceptionally bad in 2020 and 2021. This makes Biden's promise for amnesty in the first 100 days of his office would have no deportations, and the illegal immigrants would be given amnesty. Such a promise opened the floodgates for mass illegal immigration, and it just keeps coming.

The Democrats, or businesses?

The two are rather intimately joined together. Which is why the Democratic Party has had such sway over big tech companies like Google and Facebook. The Democratic Party also has more contributions than the Republicans by a significant margin, and that is just by employees.

details please ...

Even just among US citizens who are not veterans illegal immigrants are getting more benefits. Part of that is due to more needing it, but other factors include the way such benefits are distributed and encouraged as well as the discouragement of anyone who wants to be free of the welfare system. You get more money by working less, and by having more children. This incentivizes those on welfare to stay on it, and to have more children to raise the money they get. Veterans are at far higher risk of homelessness and suicide. The amount of benefits they are legally allowed to get is higher, but in practice they do not get this very often. Malicious intent is often involved behind the scenes with regard to things like this.

Are you sure this is purposed, or more just the consequence of siloed departments handling the various kinds of government aid?

It's quite purposeful. Destroying the country from within using social policies is a stock tactic going way back to people like Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky, and others(see books like The Naked Communist and Rules for Radicals). The devaluing of those who are willing to put their lives on the line for their country is not only something that is actively planned in the background, but is taught through propaganda throughout the country. Once no one is willing to give their life for a country, it's completely defenseless and that is the end goal of the Stakeholder Capitalists like Klaus Schwab and the WEF, of which Justin Trudeau and Joe Biden are members.

That is sort of a gish gallop of grievances. Most of which i'm not sure can actually be left at the feet of any one party, but are more just failures of government in general.

A Gish Gallop is a list of grievances so large the other person can't possibly respond in time, and there is no time limit to how long it takes you to respond here. I do list a lot, but that's because there are a lot of problems the left has been pushing for, and of which you are oblivious to. You don't even have to answer all of these, you just need to know that there are grievances out there that are quite horrific.

Conservatives in general uphold the sanctity of human life at all stages of development. The left on average devalues human life constantly at every stage unless you are a minority, and even then they are pushing for dehumanization with the "Gender Identity" movement and other ideological stances like p+p=r. Abortion is just a continuation of the principles that those who did forced sterilizations had, and MAID is just a continuation of the Eugenics movement as well as a money saving measure. They might have tried to make themselves seem "inclusive" and "tolerant", but it's all about getting rid of groups deemed "unfit" and/or a "burden on society". Despite their insistence that it doesn't happen, I've been on the receiving end of dehumanization for being white, male, and disabled. From both sides I've faced dehumanization for my autistic traits.

Way more than I can hope to respond to here. Some of it, maybe a lot we'd be in agreement on. We seem fairly close on abortion itself as a moral issue but may disagree on what a secular state should make legal vs illegal. I would tend to think legality hinges on a definition of consciousness and personhood, something that is doomed to fail in both camps

Personhood is way too easy to manipulate as a concept. It's been assigned to non-human animals, rivers, and taken away from Jews, blacks, disabled people etc. The beginning of a human life at conception is a clear line in the sand, and as such makes for a logically consistent point for rights to begin. It's only when the right to life of the mother is at stake that conflict arises. You might try speaking with pro-life atheists, of which there are more than you realize.

I do think there is more we agree on than you realize, which is why I'm trying to point out to you your blind spots. The alt-right is bad, and many Republican Politicians are bad or have made bad policies. I don't like Trump, but if the only alternative is WEF cronies, then I unfortunately have to side with Trump over them. It's much easier to undo the damage of one unorganized narcissist than it is to undo the damage of a global cabal of elitists who want to control the populace.

good post c123. Thanks for taking my comments seriously and dealing with them directly and competently. Some good stuff to think over in there

That's generally my goal in writing responses to people. I'm glad I succeeded this time.

Eta: wrt this:

Jesus did not condemn her to death, but He still condemned her sins as sins and told her not to sin anymore. That's a huge difference to the picture you try to paint.

He still acknowledged her deed as sinful.

And the difference in the picture I paint using those words and the one you paint is that in my picture Jesus is her redeemer, and in yours He is her judge. Jesus chose not to judge her that day, He chose to love her and offer her another chance at llife.and that is what we are called to as well.

You miss the third option, that He is both, which is the picture the Bible paints.

*Not the same as Gender Dyphoria. "Transgender" can mean anyone who doesn't conform to gender stereotypes, which is most people. Gender Dysphoria is a complicated topic, but it's not a reason to throw out biological sex as a meaningful category.