Originally posted by Whateverman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Trump explicitly floats idea of delaying the election ...
Collapse
X
-
Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostActually, it was the makeup to which I was referring. But, for school children in an educational setting, it's just dumb.
It's no outrage at all. Just an observation. I don't know what it is with you kids and the need to always see "outrage" in somebody's reply. It's stupid.
EDITED: BTW, I'm 74 years old, and you calling me a "kid" is a great compliment. And my wife just rolled on the carpet laughing when she read your post. Thanks for the entertainment.Last edited by little_monkey; 08-04-2020, 06:48 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThese are the same folks who are calling being arrested "kidnapping."The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by NorrinRadd View PostRight. The expression has particular connotations.
I mean, technically, firing a big jet of compressed air at them would be "gassing" them, but that also would be far from the usual implication of the term, "gassing."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYes, they weaponize language to make it sound absolutely horrid, and totally ignore the fact that "peaceful protesters" have not exactly been peaceful.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostPlainly visinble on a video is these agents
taking a man into custody
in an unmarked van
without any sort of announcement as to who they are
or why they are arrestimg him.
It appears they removed him from an active protest area to question him at a safer location.
Safer for themselves and for him.
It happened, and it fits the description precisely - even though you mock the reality.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Whateverman View PostProve it.
There are reports of it happening, including eyewitness accounts - something which Christians assert the absolute authority of when it comes to scripture. Why are eyewitness accounts so easily dismissed here, then?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostNow that I think of it, if the election was delayed then wouldn't the position of POTUS fall to the speaker of the House until a due election could be held, and wouldn't that be Nancy Pelosi?
After all, what if the election were delayed (I don't think that's actually possible) and he were reelected?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostIf you can control the language, then you win every argument by default.
There is this ONE example that keeps being used over and over to make it sound like this is some horrible standard procedure that is occurring all across the nation.
Meanwhile, the "peaceful protesters", the "wall of moms", the "wall of veterans".... the language makes the anarchists look like saints and the law and order look like Gestapo.
Why? That's the narrative.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWell, we assume that everyone here is up to snuff enough and so knows we are talking about tear gas and pepper spray. Apparently we can't even make that assumption because if there's any wiggle room the defenders of the governments actions will take advantage of it.
USA Today FactCheck
Under the protocol, the United States reserved the right to use riot control agents in cases of controlling rioting prisoners of war, situations where civilian casualties can be avoided. The U.S. could also use it in rescue missions to recover isolated personnel and outside of combat zones to “protect convoys from civil disturbances.”
A database by the International Committee of the Red Cross shows the ban of riot control agents in war went into effect in 1997, but still made it legal for law enforcement use. The Senate approved the CWC in a 74-26 vote on April 25, 1997.
And, if it's "defenders of the government actions" vs the anarchists who wish to destroy our nation, I'll go with the "government actions" in this case.
By the way, Barr (yeah, I know, you think he's a lacky) did an excellent job explaining the situation between interruptions by the incredibly hostile Democrats when they would yell questions at him, not let him answer, make accusations, and even "Take as no" things he said that were nowhere near "no".
Myths 5, 6: Barr used tear gas to clear out peaceful protestors for a photo op for Trump.
The myth that Trump and Barr are supposedly squashing peaceful protests throughout the country also held top billing at Tuesday’s hearing. One main line of this attack focused on the narrative that Barr had directed the removal of peaceful protestors, including with tear gas, from Lafayette Square in Washington, DC so Trump could walk to St. John’s Church for a photo op.
“On the first day of June, the world watched in horror on live television as federal agents deployed by the administration, and with you present and telling him to get it done, used force to clear Lafayette Park so that the president, with you and others at your side, could walk across the park and have a photo op in front of St. John’s church,” one committee member charged. Rep. Pramila Jayapal repeated this claim, saying Barr had directed “federal officers to close in on the protesters and to use shields offensively as weapons, tear gas, pepper balls, irritants, explosive devices, batons and horses to clear the area just so the president could get a photo op.”
While Democrats refused to allow Barr to respond to the charges, Republicans provided the attorney general a chance to detail the facts. “There was unprecedented rioting right around the White House,” Barr explained. “Very violent.”
“During that time about 90 officers were injured. In fact, the Secret Service was so concerned it recommended the president go down to the shelter,” Barr noted. “There was a breach of the Treasury Department, the lodge—an historical building on Lafayette Park—was burned down, and St. John’s Church was set on fire,” Barr added.
On Monday, Barr explained, “there was total consensus that we couldn’t allow that to happen so close to the White House, that kind of rioting,” and “therefore we had to move the perimeter out one block and push it up toward I Street.” This plan had nothing to do with the president’s decision to walk to St. John’s Church, Barr explained.
Barr also responded to another falsehood, noting that no tear gas had been used in moving the perimeter. Rather, tear gas was used to clear the way for a fire truck to put out the fire at St. John’s Church the previous evening.
To say the protest was peaceful was also not accurate: “It is a fact that the park police reported, and I saw myself projectiles being thrown from that crowd,” Barr explained, “so I did not consider them at all peaceful protesters.”The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI don't see why that would be - I know of no constitutional provision for passing power "down". It would stand to reason that he would simply remain in his position until relieved.
After all, what if the election were delayed (I don't think that's actually possible) and he were reelected?
Comment
-
Originally posted by little_monkey View PostSo according to you, trans people reading to kids in a classroom is "just dumb".
And why? Because they wear makeup?? These kids have never been exposed to humans wearing makeup??? So if a female teacher is wearing makeup while performing her duties in a classroom that would also be "just dumb", according to your logic.
However, you did use the word "outrageous" in post #123. So you've just admitted that it was stupid on your part to be outrageous by a trans reading a story in a classroom setting.
EDITED: BTW, I'm 74 years old, and you calling me a "kid" is a great compliment.
And my wife just rolled on the carpet laughing when she read your post. Thanks for the entertainment.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThe US has authorized that "wiggle room", Jim.
USA Today FactCheck
Under the protocol, the United States reserved the right to use riot control agents in cases of controlling rioting prisoners of war, situations where civilian casualties can be avoided. The U.S. could also use it in rescue missions to recover isolated personnel and outside of combat zones to “protect convoys from civil disturbances.”
A database by the International Committee of the Red Cross shows the ban of riot control agents in war went into effect in 1997, but still made it legal for law enforcement use. The Senate approved the CWC in a 74-26 vote on April 25, 1997.
And, if it's "defenders of the government actions" vs the anarchists who wish to destroy our nation, I'll go with the "government actions" in this case.
By the way, Barr (yeah, I know, you think he's a lacky) did an excellent job explaining the situation between interruptions by the incredibly hostile Democrats when they would yell questions at him, not let him answer, make accusations, and even "Take as no" things he said that were nowhere near "no".
Myths 5, 6: Barr used tear gas to clear out peaceful protestors for a photo op for Trump.
The myth that Trump and Barr are supposedly squashing peaceful protests throughout the country also held top billing at Tuesday’s hearing. One main line of this attack focused on the narrative that Barr had directed the removal of peaceful protestors, including with tear gas, from Lafayette Square in Washington, DC so Trump could walk to St. John’s Church for a photo op.
“On the first day of June, the world watched in horror on live television as federal agents deployed by the administration, and with you present and telling him to get it done, used force to clear Lafayette Park so that the president, with you and others at your side, could walk across the park and have a photo op in front of St. John’s church,” one committee member charged. Rep. Pramila Jayapal repeated this claim, saying Barr had directed “federal officers to close in on the protesters and to use shields offensively as weapons, tear gas, pepper balls, irritants, explosive devices, batons and horses to clear the area just so the president could get a photo op.”
While Democrats refused to allow Barr to respond to the charges, Republicans provided the attorney general a chance to detail the facts. “There was unprecedented rioting right around the White House,” Barr explained. “Very violent.”
“During that time about 90 officers were injured. In fact, the Secret Service was so concerned it recommended the president go down to the shelter,” Barr noted. “There was a breach of the Treasury Department, the lodge—an historical building on Lafayette Park—was burned down, and St. John’s Church was set on fire,” Barr added.
On Monday, Barr explained, “there was total consensus that we couldn’t allow that to happen so close to the White House, that kind of rioting,” and “therefore we had to move the perimeter out one block and push it up toward I Street.” This plan had nothing to do with the president’s decision to walk to St. John’s Church, Barr explained.
Barr also responded to another falsehood, noting that no tear gas had been used in moving the perimeter. Rather, tear gas was used to clear the way for a fire truck to put out the fire at St. John’s Church the previous evening.
To say the protest was peaceful was also not accurate: “It is a fact that the park police reported, and I saw myself projectiles being thrown from that crowd,” Barr explained, “so I did not consider them at all peaceful protesters.”
I don't condone violence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThere's a law in the constitution that specifies very clearly when the presidency and vice-presidency of a person terminates, I think it's January 20th or something like that.
With the president and vice-president absent it falls to the speaker of the House to act in their place. That's Nancy Pelosi. And if it's not her it'll be a Democratic majority house who'll get to select a temporary president until the election.
The National Task Force on Election Crises, a cross-partisan group of election law and security experts, released a statement pointing to pushback from Trump’s own political allies and noting that the premise of the question of succession is flawed because the election will not be delayed to begin with:
It’s critical in the Task Force’s view that the public understand that we will have an election on November 3rd, and that the president has no authority whatsoever to either change that date or to extend his term past noon on January 20th. The statute dealing w/ presidential succession is there for extraordinary circumstances, but even getting into that gives credence to the premise that we might not have an election — which we don’t want to do. There is bipartisan agreement on this point on Capitol Hill, as well, with Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and others insisting that the general election not be delayed.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 01:12 PM
|
4 responses
72 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 02:38 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-17-2024, 09:33 AM
|
45 responses
410 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Starlight
Yesterday, 05:05 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
60 responses
390 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 03:09 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
100 responses
454 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 03:52 AM |
Comment