Warbler

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Show me one practical way that it does.

Jetrell Fo said:

Tyrphanax said:

Warbler said:

Tyrphanax said:

Trump seems to be signing an absolute shitload of executive orders despite having the entire government mostly in agreement with his policies.

and here I thought Republicans didn’t like rule by executive orders. I thought they wanted Congress to have a say in these things.

It’s okay when it’s their guy, but not when it’s a legally, democratically-elected President who’s being gaslit by the republican majority who openly vowed to gaslight him at every turn.

It’s a legally, democratically-elected Republican President that will have his own Congressional issues.

it matters in that it brings to question: is the above fact or alternative fact?

He is legally elected.

Whether he was democratically-elected by your definition thereof is completely meaningless.

We will have to agree to disagree.

You do know they don’t just change a policy or definition of just because one person doesn’t define it the same, right?

yes.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Show me one practical way that it does.

Jetrell Fo said:

Tyrphanax said:

Warbler said:

Tyrphanax said:

Trump seems to be signing an absolute shitload of executive orders despite having the entire government mostly in agreement with his policies.

and here I thought Republicans didn’t like rule by executive orders. I thought they wanted Congress to have a say in these things.

It’s okay when it’s their guy, but not when it’s a legally, democratically-elected President who’s being gaslit by the republican majority who openly vowed to gaslight him at every turn.

It’s a legally, democratically-elected Republican President that will have his own Congressional issues.

it matters in that it brings to question: is the above fact or alternative fact?

He is legally elected.

Whether he was democratically-elected by your definition thereof is completely meaningless.

We will have to agree to disagree.

TV’s Frink said:

Show me one practical way that it does.

Jetrell Fo said:

Tyrphanax said:

Warbler said:

Tyrphanax said:

Trump seems to be signing an absolute shitload of executive orders despite having the entire government mostly in agreement with his policies.

and here I thought Republicans didn’t like rule by executive orders. I thought they wanted Congress to have a say in these things.

It’s okay when it’s their guy, but not when it’s a legally, democratically-elected President who’s being gaslit by the republican majority who openly vowed to gaslight him at every turn.

It’s a legally, democratically-elected Republican President that will have his own Congressional issues.

it matters in that it brings to question: is the above fact or alternative fact?

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Tyrphanax said:

Warbler said:

Tyrphanax said:

Trump seems to be signing an absolute shitload of executive orders despite having the entire government mostly in agreement with his policies.

and here I thought Republicans didn’t like rule by executive orders. I thought they wanted Congress to have a say in these things.

It’s okay when it’s their guy, but not when it’s a legally, democratically-elected President who’s being gaslit by the republican majority who openly vowed to gaslight him at every turn.

It’s a legally, democratically-elected Republican President that will have his own Congressional issues.

That is matter of opinion. Sure, he was legally elected. But is it really a democratically-elected when the majority of the voters didn’t vote for him?

In our democracy, yes he is.

technically, we are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic.

Then he is demoratic-republically elected. Regardless, he was legally elected, so the rest is all semantics.

I agree he was legally elected. But I am not so sure that the rest is all semantics.

Will this help make you sure?

Definition of semantics

the study of meanings:a : the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic developmentb (1) : semiotics (2) : a branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming, and truth

the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs; especially : connotative meaningb : the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda ) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings

sorry, no.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Tyrphanax said:

Warbler said:

Tyrphanax said:

Trump seems to be signing an absolute shitload of executive orders despite having the entire government mostly in agreement with his policies.

and here I thought Republicans didn’t like rule by executive orders. I thought they wanted Congress to have a say in these things.

It’s okay when it’s their guy, but not when it’s a legally, democratically-elected President who’s being gaslit by the republican majority who openly vowed to gaslight him at every turn.

It’s a legally, democratically-elected Republican President that will have his own Congressional issues.

That is matter of opinion. Sure, he was legally elected. But is it really a democratically-elected when the majority of the voters didn’t vote for him?

As you know, it is not the Popular Vote that elects a President so I find your point a bit moot. It’s okay that you’re not happy about it but he was elected by the lawful process this nation uses to determine this.

I have already agreed he was legally elected. I also that it is not a popular vote the elects a President. But I do not think my point is moot. I guess what I asking is, since we don’t use a popular vote, can our election system be called a democratic election system. Can any President that fails to win the popular vote, be called democratically elected? Democratically elected doesn’t necessarily equal legally elected.

It doesn’t matter.

I think it does matter.

I think that children(under 18) of politicians should be off limits or at least handled lightly. It should be remembered that children(especially those younger than 17) have no say in whether or not their parents run for office.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Tyrphanax said:

Warbler said:

Tyrphanax said:

Trump seems to be signing an absolute shitload of executive orders despite having the entire government mostly in agreement with his policies.

and here I thought Republicans didn’t like rule by executive orders. I thought they wanted Congress to have a say in these things.

It’s okay when it’s their guy, but not when it’s a legally, democratically-elected President who’s being gaslit by the republican majority who openly vowed to gaslight him at every turn.

It’s a legally, democratically-elected Republican President that will have his own Congressional issues.

That is matter of opinion. Sure, he was legally elected. But is it really a democratically-elected when the majority of the voters didn’t vote for him?

In our democracy, yes he is.

technically, we are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic.

Then he is demoratic-republically elected. Regardless, he was legally elected, so the rest is all semantics.

I agree he was legally elected. But I am not so sure that the rest is all semantics.

Jetrell Fo said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Tyrphanax said:

Warbler said:

Tyrphanax said:

Trump seems to be signing an absolute shitload of executive orders despite having the entire government mostly in agreement with his policies.

and here I thought Republicans didn’t like rule by executive orders. I thought they wanted Congress to have a say in these things.

It’s okay when it’s their guy, but not when it’s a legally, democratically-elected President who’s being gaslit by the republican majority who openly vowed to gaslight him at every turn.

It’s a legally, democratically-elected Republican President that will have his own Congressional issues.

That is matter of opinion. Sure, he was legally elected. But is it really a democratically-elected when the majority of the voters didn’t vote for him?

As you know, it is not the Popular Vote that elects a President so I find your point a bit moot. It’s okay that you’re not happy about it but he was elected by the lawful process this nation uses to determine this.

I have already agreed he was legally elected. I also that it is not a popular vote the elects a President. But I do not think my point is moot. I guess what I asking is, since we don’t use a popular vote, can our election system be called a democratic election system. Can any President that fails to win the popular vote, be called democratically elected? Democratically elected doesn’t necessarily equal legally elected.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Tyrphanax said:

Warbler said:

Tyrphanax said:

Trump seems to be signing an absolute shitload of executive orders despite having the entire government mostly in agreement with his policies.

and here I thought Republicans didn’t like rule by executive orders. I thought they wanted Congress to have a say in these things.

It’s okay when it’s their guy, but not when it’s a legally, democratically-elected President who’s being gaslit by the republican majority who openly vowed to gaslight him at every turn.

It’s a legally, democratically-elected Republican President that will have his own Congressional issues.

That is matter of opinion. Sure, he was legally elected. But is it really a democratically-elected when the majority of the voters didn’t vote for him?

In our democracy, yes he is.

technically, we are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic.

Jetrell Fo said:

Tyrphanax said:

Warbler said:

Tyrphanax said:

Trump seems to be signing an absolute shitload of executive orders despite having the entire government mostly in agreement with his policies.

and here I thought Republicans didn’t like rule by executive orders. I thought they wanted Congress to have a say in these things.

It’s okay when it’s their guy, but not when it’s a legally, democratically-elected President who’s being gaslit by the republican majority who openly vowed to gaslight him at every turn.

It’s a legally, democratically-elected Republican President that will have his own Congressional issues.

That is matter of opinion. Sure, he was legally elected. But is it really a democratically-elected when the majority of the voters didn’t vote for him?

Besides, it never stopped Obama from using Executive Privellege to get what he wanted so I am unsure as to why it’s even a topic of dicsussion.

But that is my point. Whenever Obama used executive privilege to get what he wanted, the Republicans were outraged. But now a Republican President seems to be doing the same thing.

Tyrphanax said:

Trump seems to be signing an absolute shitload of executive orders despite having the entire government mostly in agreement with his policies.

and here I thought Republicans didn’t like rule by executive orders. I thought they wanted Congress to have a say in these things.

Jetrell Fo said:

Also, Sean Spicer handled himself rather well, especially considering the crowd he was given.

This is an alternative fact.

Alternative fact:

the 100% complete and total truth with be told in this press conference.

Alternative facts:

the Sky is orange

the grass is purple

water freezes at 100 degrees Fahrenheit

America declared independence on 12/25/0001 AD.

Trump is not a sexist pig.

moviefreakedmind said:

doubleofive said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

Devil’s advocate: it’s a silly sign, but it’s also supposed to be a joke. And, like most jokes, there’s some truth behind the intent. Which is to say, obviously women have far more rights than guns (don’t think anyone doesn’t literally think that), what they’re trying to say is that they wish protecting women’s rights were as important to politicians as protecting “gun’s rights” (preventing gun control).

I still don’t agree with the premise that women’s rights are under attack in the United States.

Looks like over 3 million women disagree with you, and since they’re women, I trust they know the issue more than you do.

Well, 60,000,000 people disagree with you on Donald Trump. See how that’s not a convincing argument?

1. How many of these people are women?

2. Where did you get your number from?

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

Their rights may or may not be but their pussies definitely are.

Oh wait, that means their rights definitely are.

You’re referring specifically to abortion, which is legally challenged by people who think that the conceived but yet to be born have rights. It’s framed as misogynist even though it isn’t.

When your sitting President talks with pride about sexually harassing/assaulting women and grabbing them by the p****, it is not surprising some may fear that women’s rights are under attack.

darth_ender said:

I’ll hike were dig aims!

Well com tooth hip a sieve augers if there Ed!

huh?

I don’t know what is with me as of late. I am been so angry about Trump and other things. I’ve lashed out. I think of a quote from one of my favorite movies, 1776.

“Well I have always been dissatisfied, I know that. But lately I find that reek of discontentment, it fills my throat, it floods my brain, sometimes I feel there is no longer a dream but only the discontentment”

That is a reflection of how I’ve been feeling.

I apologize to the forum.

I have deleted a couple posts that were insulting and were probably a violation the new forum rules. I feel I should apologize for my conduct as of late. I’m sorry.

deleted.

ferris209 said:

rational, point driven, debate discussion?

ferris209 said:

Warbler said:

ferris209 said:

I really don’t understand the point from either side, the whining of the Trumpets, or the gloating about the smaller crowd by the anti-Trumpers.

Logic and common sense can naturally deduce the myriad of reasons for a smaller crowd in 2017 vs 2009.

Maybe it has something do with Obama being more popular in 2009 than Trump is in 2017?

Maybe it has something do with the fact that Obama won the popular vote in 2008 and Trump didn’t in 2016?

Also factors. Though none are conclusive.

if you say so.

Second, Washington D.C. is located in a heavily Democrat city (you can tell by the high crime rate and high level of poverty).

Was this really necessary?

Yes.

nope.

so far I’ve personally been impressed with some of what Trump as done.

That is insane and biased as hell.

My personal opinion is bias? Who’ve thunk it.

your judgement is clouded by bias.

ferris209 said:

Warbler said:

ferris209 said:

TV’s Frink said:

ferris209 said:

Second, Washington D.C. is located in a heavily Democrat city (you can tell by the high crime rate and high level of poverty)

Yeah that’s great. Time to stop reading your posts.

Quit making promises you can’t keep. 😉

quit being an annoying wise ass. There, I said it.

If my rational, point driven, debate discussion is annoying, I can stop.

I regret the name calling here, but as of late your debate style has hardly been rational, point drive, debate. Sorry but it isn’t hasn’t been.

deleted.

ferris209 said:

I really don’t understand the point from either side, the whining of the Trumpets, or the gloating about the smaller crowd by the anti-Trumpers.

Logic and common sense can naturally deduce the myriad of reasons for a smaller crowd in 2017 vs 2009.

Maybe it has something do with Obama being more popular in 2009 than Trump is in 2017?

Maybe it has something do with the fact that Obama won the popular vote in 2008 and Trump didn’t in 2016?

Second, Washington D.C. is located in a heavily Democrat city (you can tell by the high crime rate and high level of poverty).

Was this really necessary?

so far I’ve personally been impressed with some of what Trump as done.

That is insane and biased as hell.