it looks like it can happen again and i suspect if it does happen, the senate will not convict either because they can’t convict him since it’s after his presidency or simply because they don’t have sufficient votes..
Simon
By any objective comparison, anything Trump said was milder, certainly no worse, than what many many other politicians have said, most of them on the left. They have actually called for violence and when the violence happened they claim no responsibility for it.
Recent statements by liberals:
it looks like it can happen again and i suspect if it does happen, the senate will not convict either because they can’t convict him since it’s after his presidency or simply because they don’t have sufficient votes..
You may be right min....this whole situation is turning us all into constitutional scholars!
Someone here will know...some of the best minds around post here - I am so appreciative!
it looks like it can happen again and i suspect if it does happen, the senate will not convict either because they can’t convict him since it’s after his presidency or simply because they don’t have sufficient votes..
You would think Pelosi would see this is going to overshadow the Inauguration or does she just not care?
They have to know that Trump isnt going to run again in 4 years....if I can see that from here surely "the powers that be" can?
it looks like it can happen again and i suspect if it does happen, the senate will not convict either because they can’t convict him since it’s after his presidency or simply because they don’t have sufficient votes..
I thought it was just being done as a political move to insure Trump can't run again in four years? That is one of the provisos attached to being impeached - you cant hold federal office.
Is that correct?
So all the time and TAXPAYER money being used for this impeachment to give the Democrats what they perceive as an advantage in the next election?
i think that for the most part, dissenting views should be allowed to exist because of free speech principles.
one person may strongly feel that something is true while someone else may present “facts” that support the opposing view.
when that is the case, healthy discussion is mostly productive.
pistolpete have you read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu?
It's not about war so much as strategy. I think you would like it.
i think that for the most part, dissenting views should be allowed to exist because of free speech principles.
one person may strongly feel that something is true while someone else may present “facts” that support the opposing view.
when that is the case, healthy discussion is mostly productive.
"We dont see things as they are we see them as we are" - quote attributable to varied sources
Most of us here have come out of a controlling religion. Does that make us more easily controlled in the future because the neurons and pathways of memory already exist inside of us?
Or does escaping one trap set by men make us extremely aware of another one when we see it?
i think that for the most part, dissenting views should be allowed to exist because of free speech principles.
one person may strongly feel that something is true while someone else may present “facts” that support the opposing view.
when that is the case, healthy discussion is mostly productive.
I didn't realize my post was vague but I will try to be clearer.
These huge all-encompassing social media monoliths need to enforce their standards equally and they are not.
The "are not" is provable and is the problem.
i think that for the most part, dissenting views should be allowed to exist because of free speech principles.
one person may strongly feel that something is true while someone else may present “facts” that support the opposing view.
when that is the case, healthy discussion is mostly productive.
Here is some more context,,,,
I read yesterday that the Chinese Communist Party is allowed on twitter? As is The Ayatollah?
Or to use a direct line of reasoning from your post,,,,they took down Parler because they refused to moderate content about killing named individuals.
So lets look objectively at this...
That post by Kathy Griffin of her holding what appeared as the bloody severed head of the President of the United States, because according to her - she was mad at him for the way he treated a reporter?
Did you know that like a shark in the water that smells blood she has now reposted it?
And that she bragged about how it was no big deal to just take it down, AGAIN?
Heres her post
i think that for the most part, dissenting views should be allowed to exist because of free speech principles.
one person may strongly feel that something is true while someone else may present “facts” that support the opposing view.
when that is the case, healthy discussion is mostly productive.
We all walk through our days thinking our opinion is the correct one but a good way to test ourselves is to reverse the players and see if our personal thoughts still hold.
Here's an example.
@benshapiro·
Imagine if, in the midst of the massive BLM riots this summer, the entire tech infrastructure had deplatformed Facebook because some had used that app to plan events devolving into violence. People would rightly have called that an insane act of ideological fascism.
i think that for the most part, dissenting views should be allowed to exist because of free speech principles.
one person may strongly feel that something is true while someone else may present “facts” that support the opposing view.
when that is the case, healthy discussion is mostly productive.
The belief that somehow "going along to get along" is the answer.
Dont folks know, you"appear" to go along until your plan is ready to execute. And then you act!
Geesh, even I know that.
