No, it isn’t, you’re just parroting Dear Leader’s tweet on that.
This is preposterous. We just had a President undergo medical treatment and that was most likely incapacitated during (at least) part of the time, but refused to act responsibly and transfer power to the VP because he worried it would look “weak”. An insane abdication of responsibility in a democratic republic - he works for us and he put thw country in danger because of nothing more than childish ego.This committee would be a check against that in the future.
And your blathering and conspiratorial nonsense notwithstanding, the 25th Amendment provides for this mechanism right there in the text - it isn’t radical or revolutionary. Congress has just never established such a committee because it wasn’t necessary - presidents have acted responsibly in the past.
Your attempts at propaganda have been bad in the past, but this is especially bad. Give it up.
Oh I am so sorry I offended your delicate little feelings! You could not argue on the merits, so you went ad hominem.
Pelosi is indefensible and you know it. Attacking me won’t change that.
It apparently drives you nuts Trump didn’t die. Too bad, you didn’t pray hard enough I guess.
And you called me childish? That’s weakness personified.
I remember what Z’s talking about and he right. Pat wrote, without any merit or reason, wrote about the worst thing you possibly can about Z. I just checked back on the thread and he did indeed delete it, but never owned up to it. I’ve seen most people on this forum disagree vehemently about issues without ever coming close to that kind of bullshit.
To be clear, I don’t agree that Pat presents anything that indicates he considers ideas, and I am surprised to hear that his posts could cause you to change your mind on anything. I would prefer if he stayed out of any of these discussions, which I feel he devolves into middle school conspiracy theories, and links to far right sources that scare me and I feel shouldn’t be allowed on this site. I often tell myself “No more PWI on t nation” but then can’t help myself because I feel strongly about many of these issues.
My name is treco and l am addicted to arguing, with dudes that in virtually any other situation, would share a drink and lies about how rockstar my life is and has been.
I’ve been non confrontational for 3 days (due to Hill Country trip).
No, you wouldn’t. I’m not going to repeat what he posted and there is no need for context. The fact Pat deleted it after he realized it was something he could be sued over, or was told by a moderator to delete it, tells you everything you need to know.
But I’ll give you some context: I offered a different interpretation of something and he made a personal attack that was libelous. It was something that, had I given him a beating over it in his front yard, no one here would say I was wrong.
Why would he? If he were a real man he would have. If he were a real man he would never have needed to because he would never would have said it.
If there is a bright side to this it’s that I have tried to tone down how I respond on here. I think most posters here are good people regardless of whether or not we agree on everything. There’s a lot more to someone than just their political positions.
This critique re: ‘“evidence” for a narrative’ is very fair, of course.
I also think your last sentence will likely ring truest of all… and in the polar opposite way in which you meant it. Of course I refer to Trump’s upcoming (and fraudulent) challenge(s) to the results of this upcoming election that appear, sadly enough, both impending and inevitable.
I don’t disagree: Trump has always shown us exactly who he is.
Better still, Trump has pulled back the curtain on how a combo of Senate enablers + brainwashed masses (I’ve had to remind myself that only 1 in 3 US adults are ‘college or higher’ FAR TOO MANY times lately) can be so easily manipulated by a populist demagogue, and in a feedback loop, no less.
I miss the days when I thought I was smart for regurgitating left-wing narratives that can’t hold up to basic levels of scrutiny. Those sure were simpler times.
There’s no need to go into specifics when you can remind yourself that your views are shared by an overwhelming majority of liberal arts majors.
Why bother examining the outcomes of the policies you support when it’s so much easier to call the people who disagree simpletons and racists?
Doesn’t it feel great to be part of the battle against the rampant white supremacy in the USA?
Of course, but that doesn’t mean that both sides have equally good (or bad) policies. It just means low-information voters exist across the spectrum.
You need to start unpacking ideas before you move past ignorance. That is why fact-free nation-dividing narratives are necessary for Democrats to remain viable. That’s why the notion of rampant white supremacy led by Donald Trump is at the center, not the fringe, of Biden’s campaign. That’s why our eventful summer was called “mostly peaceful”, right up until the moment those white people in Michigan were apprehended before the could pull off their mostly peaceful kidnapping plan.
If Biden’s policies and the outcomes in-hand from test beds like California and Chicago were so great, there would be no need to lie directly and by media proxy.
Agree. The Dunning-Kruger line was just a joke FWIW.
I am assuming you think the GoP does this also, right?
I will admit, I used to think it was more clear that Trump was a racist. I recognize it is harder to prove than I thought. I am now of the opinion that he says “questionable” things often (this is subjective, but I would probably not be friends with someone who said as many questionable things as frequently as he does), but I admit I can’t prove his racism.
Don’t statistics back that up? Last I checked the death toll was around 30 or so, out of something like 20-30 million people. I guess the question of how safe something is, is subjective, but I’ve done plenty of activities that are more dangerous (traditional lead climbing, or black Friday shopping for example).
I don’t think we can connect the two, when there are so many other factors at play. If it can be shown to be due to Democratic policy, I am willing to look at the evidence. I have challenged others on this, and so far it has been hand waving, but I’ll keep an open mind to new evidence.