The Dayton shooter ;Connor Betts does not match the profile of a white nationalist . He appears more to resemble a sociopath like Columbine'sHarris and Klebold .
|
The Dayton shooter ;Connor Betts does not match the profile of a white nationalist . He appears more to resemble a sociopath like Columbine'sHarris and Klebold .
It was answered plainly and clearly. You just don't like the answer. It doesn't fit your view of Trump so you won't accept it. Too bad.Quote:
There was no discussion, and you still haven't answered my question.
Thus, your answer is "he's a loud-mouthed irritant."Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yes that's itQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
The dufus would be a zip darn fool to publicly declare he was a white nationalists and even his sycophants and nose holding supporters would abandon him. GAME OVER! Instead he uses the language and tactics and has for years that emboldens these type of racists NUTS with his thinly veiled dog whistles said from the podium, in speeches, and tweets and rallies that they hear loud and clear. That's what makes your whole argument nonsense to me, because he knows full well how it will be taken by those that share those views. So you can minimize his tropes all you want, it still comes down to his words and actions to get the votes of our most vile citizens, and embraces the hate they feel for those he casts as others.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That he lumps THEM all together with dems, liberals, communists, socialists is enough evidence that he stokes the fears of us OTHERS for cover to appeal to the ones like YOU in his camp. Works rather well for sure since you use that plausible deniability to justify your support of such antics in the name of policy gains. Unless he explicitly says he is a racist white nationalist but own the nationalist part then that's okay you, but their is no difference no matter how much you try to make it so. For sure he made it easier for some to swallow his crap without gagging! You're a perfect example of that.
Who is not a WN. You must learn to read more carefully and think for yourself.Quote:
Thus, your answer is "he's a loud-mouthed irritant."
Many words do not make for a sound conclusion. You think he's a white nationalist so the rest of us have to accept your conclusion? It's just a manifestation of your TDS. Your extreme hatred of Trump is distorting your judgement. I'm an example of someone who thinks for himself and does not let the democrat party's propaganda machine (a.k.a. the national media) determine his beliefs. I don't particularly like Trump, but I also do not like the hate machine which thinks that since he is a white man who considers himself a nationalist, then he must be a white nationalist. That is an error of logic that most fifth graders can see through and is utterly incorrect.Quote:
The dufus would be a zip darn fool to publicly declare he was a white nationalists and even his sycophants and nose holding supporters would abandon him. GAME OVER! Instead he uses the language and tactics and has for years that emboldens these type of racists NUTS with his thinly veiled dog whistles said from the podium, in speeches, and tweets and rallies that they hear loud and clear. That's what makes your whole argument nonsense to me, because he knows full well how it will be taken by those that share those views. So you can minimize his tropes all you want, it still comes down to his words and actions to get the votes of our most vile citizens, and embraces the hate they feel for those he casts as others.
That he lumps THEM all together with dems, liberals, communists, socialists is enough evidence that he stokes the fears of us OTHERS for cover to appeal to the ones like YOU in his camp. Works rather well for sure since you use that plausible deniability to justify your support of such antics in the name of policy gains. Unless he explicitly says he is a racist white nationalist but own the nationalist part then that's okay you, but their is no difference no matter how much you try to make it so. For sure he made it easier for some to swallow his crap without gagging! You're a perfect example of that.
In the meantime, the dem front-runner, Biden, offered his condolences to the people of Houston and Michigan. Later he had to correct himself and make that El Paso and Ohio. This past May, Biden confused former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who died in 2013, with then Prime Minister Theresa May. Oh well.
You don't have to take my word for the dufus is a white nationalist since the white nationalists thinks he is one of them too.
I'm sure a lot of black nationalists thought Obama was one of them, so by your logic Obama was a BN. I just don't agree with either of those ideas.Quote:
You don't have to take my word for the dufus is a white nationalist since the white nationalists thinks he is one of them too.
remember when the emperor would not use words like "Muslim terrorism " Remember when he call the Fort Hood shootings by a jihadist 'work place violence' . Was Bernie Sanders condemned because one of his supporters decided to murder Republican Representatives ? When the emperor would not condemn BLM ,who were calling for the death of cops ,and then Dallas cops were shot ;was the emperor held responsible ?
That was different. They were liberal democrats which makes it alright.Quote:
remember when the emperor would not use words like "Muslim terrorism " Remember when he call the Fort Hood shootings by a jihadist 'work place violence' . Was Bernie Sanders condemned because one of his supporters decided to murder Republican Representatives ? When the emperor would not condemn BLM ,who were calling for the death of cops ,and then Dallas cops were shot ;was the emperor held responsible ?
Politics. I can understand people being critical of Trump, but it's the "holier than thou" stuff that gets old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Perfect definition of "stochastic terrorism" - aka law enforcement's "lone wolf". In simple language, Trump communicates to these shooters who buy into his tweets and lies without Trump ever having to lose deniability. No one is fooled by Trump's crocodile tears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Absurd! You'll say anything no matter how far-fetched.
Did they shoot up schools, and malls? White supremist shot up churches and nut jobs shot up schools but no black nationals cutting up. You're just throwing crap in the conversation to cover the dufus, or YOURSELF!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You must be hanging around Athos. Calm down a little for goodness sake.Quote:
Did they shoot up schools, and malls? White supremist shot up churches and nut jobs shot up schools but no black nationals cutting up. You're just throwing crap in the conversation to cover the dufus, or YOURSELF!
I think you have forgotten about the riots during the Obama admin. Riots in Oakland, Pittsburg, Akron, Santa Cruz, LA, Oakland, Brooklyn, Ferguson, Chicago, and Baltimore, just to name some of them. There were 25 in total compared to only 7 in the 80's and 12 from 2000 to 2009. Do you blame those riots on fiscal conservatives? White nationalists? Obama?
I don't think Obama was anymore responsible for those riots than Trump is for mass shootings. There is no evidence worth talking about that either one is a race-based nationalist.
Might add that there have been well over 200 mass shootings in the United States just this year. Just a brief look at the descriptions sure makes it look as though that the overwhelming part were not due to white nationalists. No doubt most of them were carried out with handguns which is the case with most homicides. Relatively few are due to rifles or shotguns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...States_in_2019
This is according to FBI crimes stats. "The weapons most likely to be used to commit murder remained relatively unchanged. Of those identified by law enforcement, handguns remained the most popular weapon used in homicides followed by knives, then hands and fists. Blunt objects, rifles, shotguns, narcotics, fire, strangulation, and asphyxiation round out the top 10 most popular murder weapons."
https://freebeacon.com/issues/fbi-mu...ficantly-2016/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2019-ma...ays-this-year/
The Gun Violence Archive says there have been 33,028 total shooting incidents in 2019 as of Sunday, resulting in 8,734 deaths and 17,308 injuries.The last time the mass shooting toll topped days of the year was 2016, which had 382 mass shootings — the most in any year since the Gun Violence Archive started keeping track. The past two years came close, with 346 mass shootings in 2017 and 340 in 2018.
2016. Who was the pres then??
Violent crime trended upward dramatically during Obama's final two years. Should we hold him responsible?
37 mass shootings during the emperor's reign .
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The dufus could always declare an emergency like he did during the invasion from the south and take care of this mess with an executive order. Problem solved tomorrow. Or today if he skips his Mickey D break!Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm pretty sure these mass shootings are already against the law, so what kind of EO are you talking about? And if it's just that simple, why didn't Mr. Obama do it during his eight years?Quote:
The dufus could always declare an emergency like he did during the invasion from the south and take care of this mess with an executive order. Problem solved tomorrow. Or today if he skips his Mickey D break!
Don't know why Obama didn't, maybe he should of, but the dufus is the master negotiator fix it guy, isn't he? "Only I alone can fix it!"/Dufus running for prez.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...0948&FORM=VIRE
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...48&FORM=VDMCNR
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...48&FORM=VDQVAP
Check out the other thread.
You do the same.
That kind of stuff is just so senseless and cowardly. There is such a spirit of violence going around this world. Very sad. At least they can't blame this one on Trump. Just bear in mind that it happened in 2014.
A spirit of violence?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Largely a figure of speech, though it's also true that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."Quote:
A spirit of violence?
I thought you were identifying something specific
ok how about yesterdayQuote:
Just bear in mind that it happened in 2014.
https://apnews.com/5e44f7bd106f4fce8da21c2c11f334fc?fbclid=IwAR1b51Pe 7-RcHjmdQTGIsp9fxvnxL0lHIQf-xNaj1wrt_Va26OWFYM2cCdE
There's got to be a point here. Care to share?
Yes the point of the blade. Long before guns became the favourite weapon of mass destruction the blade was the weapon of choiceQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
House judiciary committee going to court to force Don McGahn to testify, and if successful all the rest. The wheels of justice turn slowly but they turn, despite the dufus and his lawyers throwing everything they can to block the road.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-d...el-don-mcgahn/
Interesting how the justice system works, there is supposed to be a partition between the judiciary and the other branches and yet the Congress can conduct thier own star chambers. A "judicial" enquiry was held, a report made and no doubt any recommended prosecutions have been proceeded with but now the grandstanding before an election begins or continuesQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The Congress is the check on the executive branch, and has oversight responsibility under our constitution. The dufus and his lawyer army choose to fight that, so we fight. Simple enough to understand. Haven't I been saying we have plenty of ammo in the Mueller Report? The judiciary is but the referee, and the dufus DOJ are his sycophants covering his butt.
The dufus is a drama queen for sure, so everything will be loud and chaotic as he fights for his presidency, and long-term his freedom and wealth. I think he was lying about that too, but Vlad has a few bucks to loan at mob prices.
funny thing is I don't recall Don McGahn subject to confirmation hearings . Why ? Well until now it was assumed that the President and his council's discussions were confidential subject to attorney client privilege;in this case Executive Privilege . The lower courts have had contradictory opinions on compelling a chief council to testify . Nixon lost his case because it was a criminal investigation ;not a congressional inquiry . But in another case the Appeals court ruled that the Connecticut Guv's council did not have to testify to a Grand Jury over advice to the Guv. SCOTUS has never ruled on these issues. So far this inquiry is not a criminal case . The best case that Congress can make is that this is an official impeachment hearing . And they have not done that yet . If Trump wants to fight on this hill ,the process could last past the elections .
I read in the filings that the basis for the congressional lawsuit is to decide if any actions concerning the executive branch are warranted up to and including criminal actions that could result in impeachment proceedings. Since McGahn has testified before the DOJ special counsel, the congress can inquire into those proceedings and testimony. They asked for an expedited decision, so it may come back sooner rather than later. It may not be an OFFICIAL impeachment proceeding but it's definitely an impeachment INQUIRY, giving congress the RIGHT to pursue an investigation as set out in Article I of the constitution. Can the dufus stall for a year and 4 months? Not likely but doesn't matter but Nadler said he expects to be close to deciding what the House judiciary will do by year's end, TENTIVELY. It could be longer.
Stop for a minute and consider what it means if congressional subpoenas can be ignored. Do you really want no congressional oversight of the executive branch? That's not what the founders had in mind.
sorry When he testified to Inspector Clouseau he did so with Trump's authority within the executive branch. Trump has not waived executive privilege from him testifying to Congress or for documents the toad Nadler wants . Nadler when asked about it couched his language saying his inquiry was "in effect " a "formal " impeachment proceeding . Well no ,it is not . There is a reason he is dancing around this . If this is not in some kind of criminal context no judge will agree to violate executive privilege .Quote:
Since McGahn has testified before the DOJ special counsel, the congress can inquire into those proceedings and testimony.
wait a minute . I'll ask Eric Holder .Quote:
Stop for a minute and consider what it means if congressional subpoenas can be ignored.
We will see what a judge decides but don't blame Holder for the failures of the incompetent repub congress. I mean they couldn't nail HC either, wasting taxpayer money on numerous hearings. They bit the apple so many times there is a naked tree in the orchard.
He was held in both criminal and civil contempt. He was held, by a bipartisan vote, in contempt by the House of Representatives in a 255–67 vote, with 17 Democrats voting for the measure, 2 Republicans voting against the measure.But since he was in charge of the DOJ it waa unlikely the DOJ would charge him .Evan afterU.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that he must turn over any "non-privileged" documents the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoenaed he still was off the hook and still refused to comply .It helped him that she was an emperor appointee .
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...holder-1313120
Both interesting and fascinating how things work out. Everybody has gimmicks, ticks, and traps. The dufus has a world of lawyers though.
Yes interesting . It brings us back to square one...
the District Court's holdings should not in any way control the resolution of the same or similar issues should they arise in other litigation between the Committee and the Executive Branch, and hereby waive any right to argue that the judgment of the District Court or any of the District Court's orders or opinions in this
case have any preclusive effect in any other litigation....
Meaning that there is scarce precidence for the courts intervening in the 1st place. If the courts rule in greasy slimy Nadler's favor ,Trump will take it to SCOTUS .
Yup...and the beat goes on! Top of the 3rd...NO outs!
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:20 PM. |