Posted on 03/14/2016 5:57:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
-- snip --
The General Election: If Trump is nominated, he beats Hillary. He creates a movement, a cultural buzz and novelty that overwhelms the doddering, ancient. Libfascist, pantsuited, pervert-enabling harpy. And then he proceeds to be a marginally less terrible president than she would have been.
No, they are not his words. He said we could blame the rapes and sexual assaults on the Imams who preach this crap, he did not say blame the victims. It’s right there in his post if you want to actually read what he said.
Bill, your observation is right on the money. And that is precisely why the oligarchy will not allow The Donald to have the reigns of power.
WOW, then why would “HIS WORDS” Blame Trump for the violence and not the LEFTIST ORGANIZERS that fomented the violence?
This is not really the place to have arguments based on emotions, may I suggest you tune in to “The View” where emotions trump logic everyday.
Since you have heard of inciting, you admit that our legal system DOES recognize responsibility for “encouraging” a behavior. I don’t need to pull terms out of my butt, these terms and words are a common part of the English language, spoken and understood by hundreds of millions of people around the world. I will go out on a limb here and say that most of them know what inciting means, but I will make it easy for you. It means encourage or provoke behavior that may be illegal or unethical. A possible case of inciting might be telling someone to punch another person in the mouth, or saying to a group of people that someone needs to be taught a lesson and be carried out on a stretcher.
This discussion is based on you falsely stating that another poster said something that he did not say. It is about honesty, not emotion.
I have not seen any better examples of total one-upsman ship over a talking head, since Reagan. At the end of the fairly long interview, Wallace's face wore the look of a whipped combatant.
Because I refuse to align my daily roputine to any TV programming I did not see that interview. Perhaps someone will post it on Youtube soon ...
WOW. Cankles is getting FAT !!
Sure I do.
I also recognize normal folks use words whose legal definition bears little resemblance to the colloquial understanding. That why I asked you for the legal test.
If Trump's actions don't fit the legal definition, your opinion is no more valid than if you claimed you were "robbed" when what really happened is you agreed to a bad deal.
falsely stating that another poster said something that he did not say
That is pretty dishonest on your part.
I used the EXACT SAME LOGICAL Argument in his OWN WORDS, I merely changed the characters involved, and You Know it. Now about that honesty thing you were talking about.
Patrick Wood exposed the agenda of the globalists with the following interview on Caravan To Midnight, starting at one hour and thirty minutes into the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tWMi00N9tU
I do think he is an able negotiator, and if he were dealing at arm's length and in good faith, he would be a splendid politician. But in dealing with the elite that controls our government, the people on the other side will not be dealing in good faith. He will be compelled to "act because Congress has not acted," or be impotent. My assessment of his presidency is based on how I think he would choose in that scenario.
Don't get me wrong here; the situation we have is not entirely one of the President grabbing unconstitutional powers. The opportunity was handed to 0bama (deliberately by Harry Reid) because Congress is dysfunctional. The dysfunction in Congress is mainly political, and by that I look at three aspects of public office in the United States; politics, policy and law.
Politics is what you do to gain office, and is supposed to be the input or means of the people to express their voice by the selection of elected officials. Policy is what those officials pursue once they have gained office. Theoretically, it is the expression of the political will of people who put them there. Law is what is created to carry out that policy. Law is to be carried out by the executive, and interpreted by the Courts. The executive should only make policy as necessary to carry out the law. Courts should never make policy.
Our system has broken down in so many ways I can't post it all here in one comment. It could fill a textbook. But to try to distill it down to its essence, we have a Congressional system that is designed to select office holders who are really good at politics, but don't know a damn thing about policy except as to pursue politics. The result is that no Congressman will take a policy position that means saying "no" to his electorate, even though they need to hear it, because that will cost him his job. Thus, Congressmen do NOTHING but spend money while in office in order to keep office, and we have a breakdown of policy.
Because they do not pursue policy, they do not act by making law. The executive and the judiciary are acting to fill the vacuum. The executive, as in the current case of United States v. Texas, has acted to confer legal status on 4.3 million illegal aliens with the justification "I have acted because Congress has not acted." However, inherent in that statement is the full meaning which is not stated: "I have acted because Congress has not acted the way I want them to."
The Courts have also acted to fill the void, as in the case of Massachussetts v. EPA where the Court gave standing to the state of Massachussetts to sue the federal government to regulate Carbon Dioxide emissions into the atmosphere as a pollutant. In so doing, not only did the Court make law, by declaring that the EPA had to regulate, they went much farther in making policy. That policy was to make "global warming/climate change" the official enforceable policy of the United States government.
When you make law, you inherently make a policy judgement that supports the law. That is supposed to be the exclusive domain of Congress, as the making of policy is dependent upon the political expression of the people, not arbitrarily imposed by Courts. And, because of the doctrine of Judicial Supremacy, which is an extension of Judicial Review, the Courts are the final arbiter of Constitutionality and the law. Having made policy by judicial fiat, it is no longer subject to the political process.
So I know it's long and rambling, but to get back to Trump, our dysfunctional political Congress, that lacks the will to properly make policy (or has deferred its policy making to the special interests that control them), has abdicated its constitutional function. The executive is, more than the Courts, filling that function. I fully expect the Supreme Court, by a 5-3 vote, to permit the Executive to do just that in United States v. Texas That is the structural situation of the executive office, and the question now is since we have an Imperial Presidency:
Who do we want to entrust with that power? For the sake of our country, it cannot be Hillary Clinton.
You said that already, but this whole discussion was not about logical equivalence. It was about you misquoting another poster’s comments, which you did. Now you are just giving me a headache. Thank God and Kentucky there is a solution, and I am about to pour some of it over a couple of ice cubes.
Donald Trump
He's an American and he loves his country.
He's not 'owned' by anybody
He's not a Washington insider or an establishment politician
He's an astonishingly successful businessman, CEO- and charismatic.
His remarkable children are a testament to his character and abilities
Donald Trump was the ONLY one with guts enough to stand up to the corrupt in Washington, to say what we the people have been screaming about-but have been ignored.
We all say we need another revolution against the corrupt government. Well, it's here and Donald started it. He tells the RINOS and Libs what we cannot. HE IS OUR VOICE .
is a brilliant business man and he will surround himself with the most brilliant, talented America has to offer-per his cabinet and advisers. This is the kind of man we need to run the country.
He Will make America great again. He will make America RESPECTED again.
I fear we are in the midst of a national waking nightmare that will get a lot worse.
Hitler became Chancellor because everybody hated Kurt von Schleicher.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.