@clousems >'unlawful'
tell that trump (not the soldiers)
it's him who's messing with the law
and got convicted alright
Don't turn things upside down - people will notice at once
@ThunderClap said in #27:
> In Whole @Noflaps
... and so in Conclusion' ... the arguments presented clearly demonstrate the in excusive nature of Trump's comments Again ... Poor fella'
@CoffeeBeanKiller said in #37:
> you seem to be confused as why you even take noflap's side.
Post 2 of mine on the subject I thought was a pretty good clarification of Post 1. They don't contradict each other, because the keywords are *unintentional* and *can come across as*. The first summarizes a general viewpoint. The second adds context.
I've told ya'll a million times now that I struggle to put my thoughts into words so to take further clarification posts as exactly that. Let a girl struggle in peace without jumping on my poor word choice mistakes constantly or worse, quoting me out of context ;)
But anyhow, I suppose I am derailing this thread a bit so I will leave.
@greenteakitten said in #53:
> They don't contradict each other, because the keywords are unintentional and can come across as.
Maybe one day you can explain to me what is unintentional condescension, if not condescension. I understand that you're confused...
@DuMussDieUhrDruecken , you write in #51, apparently with respect to President Trump, "it's him who's messing with the law" (sic).
No, it is he who is attempting to enforce American law, to the sometimes displeasure of some in the Democrat party who are apparently not always in sympathy with his efforts in that regard. Indeed, such apparent displeasure would provide, for me at least, an ironic chuckle should I happen to hear any such Democrat somberly advise our well-trained and professional military to follow the law.
As one who carefully follows the news from a variety of sources, the situation is much more complicated than some at considerable distance may fully realize. And as far as Trump's "conviction" in New York (no less), I suggest that it will be wise to follow the appeals process carefully, to its final conclusion, before being too certain about the ultimate outcome.
Do you remember what happened when the attempt to remove Trump from the ballot (!) in 2020 initially appeared to achieve a measure of success? Yeah, the judicial system eventually got that right and he stayed on and even got elected. Any opponents who celebrated initially and prematurely got to see, in time, the American judicial system yet again do its proper and important job.
Democracy is not really at risk in the United States, and the nation still has a brilliant system of checks and balances enshrined in its quite excellent constitution.
@CoffeeBeanKiller , in his or her #48 above, appears to ask @clousems, and perhaps the rest of us, the following question, verbatim.
"If a propaganda is true, is itstill propaganda?"
The answer is "sure."
Let me illustrate: we can all agree, I hope, that a person should NOT beat his or her spouse. It seems an undeniable truth that spouse beating is bad, indeed evil and sickening, and should not be done.
But what if two politicians were debating in front of the news cameras, and one of them said to the other: "Let me remind you that spouse beating is bad."
Well, uh, sure. Spouse beating IS bad! That's true! But ... so what? Was it a fair statement in context?
To the listener, wouldn't that seem to suggest that there might be some reason, unbeknownst to the listeners -- some reason the speaking politician didn't bother to mention specifically -- to think the silent politician NEEDED such a reminder? Would it serve to cause some wonder among the public that the silent politician had BEEN beating his or her spouse or was likely to do so and NEEDED reminding?
Would that usually be a fair debating tactic, just because the statement "spouse beating is bad" is ... true?
The notion that the well-trained, volunteer and professional American military might need to be reminded not to take illegal action seems, to me at least, to provide an implication that is far more political and pointed -- and apparently meant to influence the PUBLIC to whom it was actually and generally imparted -- than is genuinely necessary.
Politics sometimes gets a bit too cute lately, in my humble-but-nevertheless-likely-to-be-criticized opinion.
(I'm going for the record number of hyphens in an adjectival phrase! Wish me luck!)
Online forums are interesting laboratories. One can ascertain or verify much from their use.
@CoffeeBeanKiller said in #54:
> Maybe one day
You can leave the patronization at home and talk normally, please and thank you.
> you can explain to me what is unintentional condescension, if not condescension.
Condescension: Being condescending intentionally.
Unintentional condescension: Poor word choice and phrasing that leads to the appearance of being condescending despite that not being the original intention.
> I understand that you're confused...
Wow, showing the exact same polite smugness that you claim to fight against? Hypocrite much?
@Mrchess78 said in #18:
> > #15
> > "point things out"
> >
> > Isn't #1 "point things out"? Isn't that then good?
>
> It's about educating oneself about the world we live in as opposed to this kind of herd mentality of regurgitating what someone else said somewhere as truth without any personal research being carried out, it's lazy and dangerous, and I can think for myself and require no validation to bolster my stance, as I live in truth over illusion and delusion. :).
Brings us to the age-old question - 'What is Truth?' I think that would be a nice topic for a separate thread.
@Noflaps said in #55:
> Democracy is not really at risk in the United States, and the nation still has a brilliant system of checks and balances enshrined in its quite excellent constitution.
The courts should be a 'check and balance' on the executive branch. However, if we have someone who said during a DOJ meeting that they might need to tell the courts “f*** you” (and text messages and emails between DOJ officials corroborate the comment), then how can the courts be a check on the executive branch? That man, Emil Bove, was later nominated by Trump to be a Federal Judge.
Courts don't have the same level of enforcement power as the executive branch. What is needed is a President who respects the judiciary even when it disagrees with him. If a President chooses to defy the courts, then democracy really is in danger. Of course, another check on the executive branch is Congress. Both parties came together to remove Nixon and to order the release of the Epstein files. So we will see how far they let Trump go.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sen. Adam Schiff’s Line of Questioning:
Schiff directly asked: “Did you say anything of that kind in the meeting?” (i.e., suggested telling courts “f*** you” and ignoring court orders).
Bove responded: “Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of that kind.”
Schiff followed up: “Did you suggest telling the courts “f*** you” in any manner?”
Rev
Bove replied: “I don’t recall.”