America's favorite idiot wants to suspend the constitution

[rogue06]

It was such an incredibly one-sided "investigation" it's almost criminal. AND... did you see that Liz Cheney was a runner-up for Time's Person of the Year?

An award that Hitler was bestowed with.

[Cow Poke]

In a pigs eye. It's what his words imply, at least in english. Maybe you speak in some other tongue? Must be.

So, I'm seeing a patter here, Jim.

You and I agreed to keep it civil, like old friends just talking things over.
I've kept my end of the bargain. Sure, I'm direct, but I have treated you with respect.

So, what I see happening is pretty much a vicious cycle.

• You say something with which I disagree, and I point it out, even providing proof in black and white.
• You get angry, and just dig deeper.
• Eventually, you seem unable to contain the anger, and resort to this uncalled for snittiness.
• Then you disappear.

Perhaps you're regretting losing your temper? Or coming close to losing your temper?

Why can't you just discuss things without going redzone?
Why do you allow Trump to control your life like this?

I'll still talk to you like we're old friends just discussing things, but it would really help if you could do likewise.

[tabibito]

An award that Hitler was bestowed with.

Time's "person of the year" is awarded to the person who has had the greatest impact on the world in the year just past. In Hitler's case, the award shouldn't be considered approbation.

https://time.com/5573720/hitler-world-influence/

Hitler appeared on the cover of TIME on multiple occasions — most famously perhaps on Jan. 2, 1939, when he was named Man of the Year. That choice abided by the dictum of TIME founder Henry Luce, who decreed that the Man of the Year — now Person of the Year — was not an honor but instead should be a distinction applied to the newsmaker who most influenced world events for better or worse. In case that second criterion was lost on readers, the issue that named Hitler dispensed with the portrait treatment that cover subjects typically got. Instead he was depicted as a tiny figure with his back to the viewer, playing a massive organ with his murdered victims spinning on a St. Catherine’s wheel. Underneath the stark, black-and-white illustration was the caption, “From the unholy organist, a hymn of hate.”

1101390102_400.jpg?quality=85&w=400.jpg

[rogue06]

Time's "person of the year" is awarded to the person who has had the greatest impact on the world in the year just past. In Hitler's case, the award shouldn't be considered approbation.

https://time.com/5573720/hitler-world-influence/

Hitler appeared on the cover of TIME on multiple occasions — most famously perhaps on Jan. 2, 1939, when he was named Man of the Year. That choice abided by the dictum of TIME founder Henry Luce, who decreed that the Man of the Year — now Person of the Year — was not an honor but instead should be a distinction applied to the newsmaker who most influenced world events for better or worse. In case that second criterion was lost on readers, the issue that named Hitler dispensed with the portrait treatment that cover subjects typically got. Instead he was depicted as a tiny figure with his back to the viewer, playing a massive organ with his murdered victims spinning on a St. Catherine’s wheel. Underneath the stark, black-and-white illustration was the caption, “From the unholy organist, a hymn of hate.”

Kind of my point. Being Time's Man of the Year doesn't mean they did something good.

[tabibito]

Kind of my point. Being Time's Man of the Year doesn't mean they did something good.

Yup - I see that Elon Musk and Donald Trump also made Time's top 100 list.

[Stoic]

Starting with, given there were warnings of potential violence why did Pelosi turn down Trump's offer of sending the National Guard in to insure order?

You still think Pelosi turned down an offer of sending the National Guard in to insure order?

[Mountain Man]

You still think Pelosi turned down an offer of sending the National Guard in to insure order?

In a Monday letter, top-ranking House Republicans including Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) also accused Pelosi (D-Calif.) of blocking their requests for information on security failures.

“As you are aware, the Speaker of the House is not only the leader of the majority party, but also has enormous institutional responsibilities,” the pols wrote in the letter obtained by Fox News.

“The Speaker is responsible for all operational decisions made within the House.”

In the letter, the Republican lawmakers said they had seen a “very heavy-handed and tightly controlled approach to House operations” from Pelosi’s office and demanded to know why requests for the National Guard to be deployed before the insurrection were rebuffed.

Capitol Hill Police were heavily outnumbered by supporters of then-President Donald Trump who stormed Congress on Jan. 6 and came dangerously close to lawmakers who were huddled inside.

The Republicans noted that Capitol Police Chief Steve Sund approached Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving on Jan. 4 to request National Guard support but his request was denied.

“When then-Chief Sund made a request for national guard support on January 4th, why was that request denied?” Republicans wrote, per the Fox News report.

“Did Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving get permission or instruction from your staff on January 4th prior to denying Chief Sund’s request for the national guard?”

Pelosi’s office said Monday that Irving did not bring a National Guard request to them before the day of the siege.

Sund and Irving resigned under heavy pressure from Pelosi — a decision that the top-ranking Republicans also chafed at.

https://nypost.com/2021/02/15/house-...rity-failures/

[Stoic]

In a Monday letter, top-ranking House Republicans including Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) also accused Pelosi (D-Calif.) of blocking their requests for information on security failures.

“As you are aware, the Speaker of the House is not only the leader of the majority party, but also has enormous institutional responsibilities,” the pols wrote in the letter obtained by Fox News.

“The Speaker is responsible for all operational decisions made within the House.”

In the letter, the Republican lawmakers said they had seen a “very heavy-handed and tightly controlled approach to House operations” from Pelosi’s office and demanded to know why requests for the National Guard to be deployed before the insurrection were rebuffed.

Capitol Hill Police were heavily outnumbered by supporters of then-President Donald Trump who stormed Congress on Jan. 6 and came dangerously close to lawmakers who were huddled inside.

The Republicans noted that Capitol Police Chief Steve Sund approached Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving on Jan. 4 to request National Guard support but his request was denied.

“When then-Chief Sund made a request for national guard support on January 4th, why was that request denied?” Republicans wrote, per the Fox News report.

“Did Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving get permission or instruction from your staff on January 4th prior to denying Chief Sund’s request for the national guard?”

Pelosi’s office said Monday that Irving did not bring a National Guard request to them before the day of the siege.

Sund and Irving resigned under heavy pressure from Pelosi — a decision that the top-ranking Republicans also chafed at.

https://nypost.com/2021/02/15/house-...rity-failures/

Your article doesn't say anything about Pelosi turning down an offer of sending the National Guard in.

Though it does make it appear that she never turned down a request for National Guard support from her subordinates, either.

[rogue06]

Your article doesn't say anything about Pelosi turning down an offer of sending the National Guard in.

Though it does make it appear that she never turned down a request for National Guard support from her subordinates, either.

She's the one that was ultimately in charge and turned down having the National Guard being present -- something that Trump offered.

[CivilDiscourse]

Yeah, I missed this earlier. It is EXACTLY what you are doing, Jim.
You misrepresent what Trump said (it really is all there in black and white) then you explain a meaning you want to believe to match the message you want to give.

And, yes, it is entirely dishonest to build a case on what Trump never said.

Jim - there are PLENTY of things Trump actually said, that if quoted accurately, are damning enough.
You go over the top with seeing things that simply are not there, and would clearly be called out of order in a court.

The problem is "Suspend the constitution" is one of those things that comes across pretty clearly. That's not the type of phrase that only means "part of." The largest part is, that if he had started this thread with "America's favorite idiot wants to override the constitution to be installed president" I doubt he would have faced nearly as much push back.

Though, it's not really OX's fault. The "Suspend the constitution" talking point is going around in the political circles. It's another one of those "Horse tranquilizer" spins that seems to have caught on, and Ox doesn't seem to have the skill needed to critically assess the headlines.

[Cow Poke]

The problem is "Suspend the constitution" is one of those things that comes across pretty clearly. That's not the type of phrase that only means "part of." The largest part is, that if he had started this thread with "America's favorite idiot wants to override the constitution to be installed president" I doubt he would have faced nearly as much push back.

Though, it's not really OX's fault. The "Suspend the constitution" talking point is going around in the political circles. It's another one of those "Horse tranquilizer" spins that seems to have caught on, and Ox doesn't seem to have the skill needed to critically assess the headlines.

Even allowing for that, if somebody says "this situation allows for....", it's not the same as "because of this situation, I want to.....".

[firstfloor]

FYI. The whole it was all about the nude images on the laptop is nothing more than the latest thing concocted by the left to justify the censoring of anything about Hunter's laptop before the election.

If not that, what was it about?

[CivilDiscourse]

Even allowing for that, if somebody says "this situation allows for....", it's not the same as "because of this situation, I want to.....".

I'm going to actually agree with OX here. Trump feels wronged, and so I believe (this is my opinion) that he said it because he wants it. Though, less a direct call for action and more of a "I want this", because there is nothing to answer the call. It's more Trump yelling into the wind.

It's sort of like a mobster saying "Nice place you got here, shame if something were to happen to it." He didn't ACTUALLY make the threat....

[rogue06]

If not that, what was it about?

Ask "the Big Guy."

[firstfloor]

Even allowing for that, if somebody says "this situation allows for....", it's not the same as "because of this situation, I want to.....".

Trump does not have the authority to do anything and therefore cannot say “I want to …..”.

”allows for” stems from his lack of authority. But it indicates what he wishes were true.