@no1marauder
You are doing it again. You are making assumptions that are not evident. It only matters when Meadows got the text if he told Trump right away. That is how bias can mislead you. A republican could do the same thing with the assertion there is a video of Hillary and Huma on Anthony Weiner's laptop torturing a child. Here is a video explaining the allegation:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cSCSqKa4on9d/
Now I could assume all of that stuff said in the video is true, but would you?
CNN lied about Joe Rogan. They cannot be trusted to tell the truth. AP reported Russia fired a missile at Poland when it was Ukraine that did it so AP cannot be trusted either. Should I just assume the torture video exists and it really is Hillary and Huma?
@metal-brain saidSo your claim is that the President's chief of staff who was in the same room as him didn't bother to tell him what was in texts sent by his political allies, including his own son?
@no1marauder
You are doing it again. You are making assumptions that are not evident. It only matters when Meadows got the text if he told Trump right away. That is how bias can mislead you. A republican could do the same thing with the assertion there is a video of Hillary and Huma on Anthony Weiner's laptop torturing a child. Here is a video explaining the allegation: ...[text shortened]... be trusted either. Should I just assume the torture video exists and it really is Hillary and Huma?
Sure. Everybody is lying but Donald Trump.
"Throughout the latest hearing, former Trump administration staffers testified both in person and in videotaped depositions about how they urged Trump that day to make a public statement condemning the Capitol assault, and how he instead watched the riot unfold for more than three hours on Fox News from the dining room off the Oval Office.
At one point, former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone recounted for committee investigators all the officials who asked Trump to try to quell the violence on Jan. 6, including White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, White House lawyer Eric Herschmann, Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, National Security official Keith Kellogg, and Trump’s daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner."
https://time.com/6199490/trump-jan-6-oath-dereliction-duty/
@no1marauder saidNo, I am claiming you have no evidence of that assumption. You are leaving out other possibilities with prejudice. Even a person in the same room might be busy talking to someone else. I actually think that was likely. It was a pivotal point in history with all sorts of possibilities. I am sure a lot of people wanted to talk to him at the time. Maybe there was a line of people waiting to talk to Trump.
So your claim is that the President's chief of staff who was in the same room as him didn't bother to tell him what was in texts sent by his political allies, including his own son?
Sure. Everybody is lying but Donald Trump.
You remind me of Sabine Hossenfelder's video of her claiming gravity is not a force.
She does the same thing you are doing. Notice how she is not making a compelling case for it at all. Acceleration is a force but gravity is not? And why? Because gravity is not a force. LOL! No, she needs to explain WHY gravity is not a force.
And her free fall analogy fails if a person enters a black hole because of spaghettification. Acceleration cannot do that. If my body was being torn apart by gravity I think I could tell it is gravity and not acceleration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification
The equivalence principal is also not completely equivalent. It was never meant to be taken literally in the way she is. If it was equivalent light would accelerate and it doesn't and is still supposed to not experience the passage of time. And what if you were in a box and you didn't know you were in an O'Neill cylinder? You might be wondering if you are experiencing acceleration or gravity and it could be neither. Well, maybe you could tell because of other reasons, but you kind of see the point.
The reason she never took any of that into account is because physicists are biased too. She is simply assuming Einstein was right about gravity not being a force. It is not as if Einstein was never wrong about anything. He was, but she is assuming her hero is right about this too. She did the same nonsense when she claimed there is no free will by pretending she was proving something. She was not convincing at all.
Bias is clouding your judgement.
2 edits
@no1marauder said"he instead watched the riot unfold for more than three hours on Fox News from the dining room off the Oval Office"
"Throughout the latest hearing, former Trump administration staffers testified both in person and in videotaped depositions about how they urged Trump that day to make a public statement condemning the Capitol assault, and how he instead watched the riot unfold for more than three hours on Fox News from the dining room off the Oval Office.
At one point, former White Ho ...[text shortened]... Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner."
https://time.com/6199490/trump-jan-6-oath-dereliction-duty/
How do you know that is true? Did he watch the guy that broke the capitol building door on fox news? Isn't that when the violence started? Babbit got shot right after that and it was that guy's fault. You don't know Fox News was covering when the violence started on their broadcast unless you were watching Fox News at the same time yourself. I doubt that.
Pat Cipollone is a witness for the other witnesses? How do you know he didn't lie?
Do you think that guy that broke the CB door should be arrested and charged with a crime? Yes or no?
@no1marauder saidmaybe you can explain then why we are paying MORE , over a dollar per gallon than we did under Trump
When you idiots are told something by your right wing propagandists, you just refuse to believe any contrary facts. I've shown this to you before but:
"The US is now history's largest oil producer, according to S&P Global Commodities Insight.
Crude and condensate production hit a new global record this quarter.
"When you look back on 2008 — when US production was at ...[text shortened]... istory%27s%20biggest%20oil%20producer,barrels%20per%20day%20for%20total%20US%20liquids%20production.
@no1marauder said😂
I already explained to you what that meant.
It didn't mean the Amendments were meaningless until Congress decided to do something.
you are a sad joke
it means congress is the only one that can enforce these laws.
Rogue democrat judges cant enforce those laws, and it is clear why only congress can enforce.
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidBecause the COVID recession is over and because of the war in Ukraine.
maybe you can explain then why we are paying MORE , over a dollar per gallon than we did under Trump
And price per gallon is about 50 cents more than in December 2019 and falling fast; it has dropped about $1.80 in the last 18 months. https://www.finder.com/gas-prices
The whole world is paying more, so it has little to do with US policies.
@mott-the-hoople saidSo we still have slavery then.
😂
you are a sad joke
it means congress is the only one that can enforce these laws.
Rogue democrat judges cant enforce those laws, and it is clear why only congress can enforce.
Gotcha.
@mott-the-hoople said" Furthermore, we agree with the Electors that interpreting any of the
😂
you are a sad joke
it means congress is the only one that can enforce these laws.
Rogue democrat judges cant enforce those laws, and it is clear why only congress can enforce.
Reconstruction Amendments, given their identical structure, as not self-executing
would lead to absurd results. If these Amendments required legislation to make
them operative, then Congress could nullify them by simply not passing enacting
legislation. The result of such inaction would mean that slavery remains legal;
Black citizens would be counted as less than full citizens for reapportionment; nonwhite male voters could be disenfranchised; and any individual who engaged in insurrection against the government would nonetheless be able to serve in the
government, regardless of whether two-thirds of Congress had lifted the
disqualification. Surely that was not the drafters’ intent."
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf at Pages 54-55
What's your answer to this?
1 edit
@no1marauder saidThe amendments dont require ANYTHING to make them operative. No one said they did.
" Furthermore, we agree with the Electors that interpreting any of the
Reconstruction Amendments, given their identical structure, as not self-executing
would lead to absurd results. If these Amendments required legislation to make
them operative, then Congress could nullify them by simply not passing enacting
legislation. The result of such inaction would ...[text shortened]... t_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf at Pages 54-55
What's your answer to this?
BUT, if someone goes against the laws such as the colorado SC is doing it will go to the SCOTUS that will rule according to the constitution, which will show the colorado SC does not have standing to enforce this law, only congress does.
a very stupid approach on your part.
@sonhouse saidA post from left field!!!! No idea what he is responding to. And no idea why directed at me.
@AverageJoe1
Like I said, you defend your religion, Trump IS your god and your god is clearly above the law and you think he is joking when he says he will pull out of NATO, put babies back in cages, invoke the insurrection act on day one so he can order the military to attack peaceful protesters.
And you don't believe a word of it, yet that has come directly out of the mouth of your Jesus.
Tell me why you don't believe your own god?
@mott-the-hoople saidYour post is incoherent nonsense.
The amendments dont require ANYTHING to make them operative. No one said they did.
BUT, if someone goes against the laws such as the colorado SC is doing it will go to the SCOTUS that will rule according to the constitution, which will show the colorado SC does not have standing to enforce this law, only congress does.
a very stupid approach on your part.
The Colorado Supreme Court is required to enforce the Constitution by the Supremacy Clause already cited. So, of course, they have the legitimate power to make binding decisions regarding the 14th Amendment.
@no1marauder saidif you ignore this...
Your post is incoherent nonsense.
The Colorado Supreme Court is required to enforce the Constitution by the Supremacy Clause already cited. So, of course, they have the legitimate power to make binding decisions regarding the 14th Amendment.
“ The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
@mott-the-hoople saidI don't ignore it, I just read it in the context its Framers intended.
if you ignore this...
“ The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Did the 13th Amendment abolish slavery or is it still legal because Congress hasn't passed a statute outlawing it?