• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New audio reveals McCarthy said Trump admitted bearing some responsibility for Capitol attack

You are right because "character" is not something that Republicans value. In fact, that actually shun it.
What's your issue with McCarthy's "character?"
 
I'm going stop posting support if you are not going to read the material. Seriously.

Chief of the Capitol Police begged Pelosi and McConnell's direct reports six times to deploy the National Guard ahead of January 6th.

Feel free to be an apologist for Pelosi and McConnell and Nancy's Partisan Circus Committee. But don't act offended when you get called out as a stooge when you post that Nancy's Partisan Circus Committee is even remotly interested in the truth of what happened surrounding the January 6th riot.
They are not Pelosi's and McConnell's direct reports on matters of capitol security. Pelosi and McConnell's say over security ends at their responsibility to nominate the Sergeants at Arms, and the Sergeants at Arms are not obligated to follow the orders of the Speaker or the Minority Leader on matters of capitol security. The Speaker and the Minority Leader are not security specialists, nor are they expected to be. That is what The Capitol Police Board is for. The Capitol Police Board has final say over capitol security, not the Speaker or the Minority Leader.
 
They are not Pelosi's and McConnell's direct reports on matters of Capitol security. Pelosi and McConnell's say over security ends at their responsibility to nominate the Sergeants at Arms and the Sergeants at Arms are not obligated to follow the orders of the Speaker or the Minority Leader on matters of capitol security. The Speaker and the Minority Leader are not security specialists, nor are they expected to be. That is what The Capitol Police Board is for. The Capitol Police Board has final say over Capitol security, not the Speaker or the Minority Leader.
Yes they are. I warned you. If you are not going to even bother reading the support material that you asked for and educate yourself, I'm not even going to bother with you.

Have a nice day.
 
Yes they are. I warned you. If you are not going to even bother reading the support material that you asked for and educate yourself, I'm not even going to bother with you.

Have a nice day.
I did read it. You assume that because the Sergeants at Arms report to the Speaker and the Minority Leader, that the Speaker and the Majority Leader are therefore in charge of security. That isn't how it works. The Secret Service reports to the Secretary of Homeland Security, who reports to the President, however the President is not in charge of his own security. Do you understand how that works? The Secret Service has more authority than the President does over his own security. If the President orders the Secret Service to allow him to travel to Ukraine, for example, the Secret Service has the authority and the responsibility to refuse this order if they judge that effective security cannot be maintained. They indirectly report to the President, but they are in charge of and have the final say over the President's security, since he is not, and is not expected to be, a security expert.

Therefore, neither Pelosi nor McConnell had any authority over capitol security on 1/6.
 
Dismissed.
Once again, a conservative confronted with truth turns the other way.... sorry, but whether you choose to face this or not, there are serious questions about McCarthey's character.




When a man's character comes into question, what else does he really have? This guy is suppose to be a leader, but how can one be a leader with no character, as without character, there can be no respect.

Similar to Trump, McCarthey stands for nothing except himself. He clearly does not stand for America, as he showed us all in January 2021. In his one moment of valor, he scared himself and ran to Florida to prostate himself to his "daddy".

Do you have an answer to any of this, or are we just getting too close to the truth for your comfort? You can run away, but I am not here to convince you, just to expose the emptiness of "the other side" for all to see. You running away certainly does that for me.
 
Last edited:
Once again, a conservative confronted with truth turns the other way.... sorry, but whether you choose to face this or not, there are serious questions about McCarthey's character.




When a man's character comes into question, what else does he really have? This guy is suppose to be a leader, but how can one be a leader with no character, as without character, there can be no respect.

Similar to Trump, McCarthey stands for nothing except himself. He clearly does not stand for America, as he showed us all in January 2021. In his one moment of valor, he scared himself and ran to Florida to prostate himself to his "daddy".

Do you have an answer to any of this, or are we just getting too close to the truth for your comfort? You can run away, but I am not here to convince you, just to expose the emptiness of "the other side" for all to see. You running away certainly does that for me.

You ran from my question - twice. I don't bother a third time.
 
You ran from my question - twice. I don't bother a third time.
My apologies. It is no wonder we had a disconnect. I jumped right into the discussion without recognizing the fact that most McCarthey and Trump supports have no idea what character actually is. Forgive me.

Let's start what character is. According to Websters, a man of character is a man "moral excellence and firmness" . That would seem to rule out liar's and flip-floppers. McCarthey both flipped flopped on Trump's culpability, then lied about what he said, even though it was on tape.



He said the President bears responsibility for what transpired on 1/6. What did he do, specifically, to ensure the President faced responsibility for his actions? Answer: nothing. He lacked the character of his "convictions" (because there were no convictions, because McCarthey has no character)

But, here is a more thorough description of character. https://www.artofmanliness.com/char...r-its-3-true-qualities-and-how-to-develop-it/

It speaks of three characteristics:
Moral Discipline​
Moral Attachment​
Moral Automomy​

It seems the common denominator is about morality. How does Kevin McCarthey (or Trump) for that matter measure up? Something like this, I suppose, where Kevin is Dave (insignificant).

1650994549591.png

You can read this for yourself, as I know I am introducing a new concept and you will want to learn more. I did, however, particularly like this passage:

.It should not be thought, however, that character is synonymous merely with personal tastes, temperaments, and preferences. Things like how you dress, your favorite music, or whether you are introverted or extroverted have little to nothing to do with character. Rather, character is defined in how your habits, motives, thoughts, and so on relate to morality, particularly as it concerns integrity. Character was defined as “your moral self,” the “crown of a moral life,” and referred to as a “moral structure,” something you built through virtuous behavior.

Bruce writes:Character is nature and nurture. It is nature cultured and disciplined, so that natural tendencies are brought under the sway of the moral motive. His natural individuality marks off a man from his fellows by clear and specific differences. But this individuality may be non-moral. To produce character it must be brought under discipline, and organized into the structure of a true moral being . . .

Above all, [character] includes a choice, a settled habit or bent of will, so that it can be seen in its outcome in conduct. Character takes up the raw material of nature and temperament, and it weaves these into the strong, well-knit texture of a fully moralized manhood.

Now, I again refer you to post #57 which shows why Kevin McCarthey does not even remotely fit any of this definition. Those cites consistently paint him as a self-serving liar, including the lie that he would uphold the constitution, yet participated (and/or sanctioned persons) in overturning the results of the 2020 election and then looking the other way in the fifteen months years since. That is not upholding the Constitution. As per above, he renounced Trump, then denied he did and then validated him. There is NO character (moral quality) to any of his actions, because he is a man without character.

So, I get it, the concept of character is new to you. I am sorry that I assumed you knew what it was and thus could debate intelligently. Of course, you know what that say about assumption. Perhaps in this case its just 'assu'?

Duly noted by all of us, you can not actually defend McCarthey's character, seemingly conceding the point to focus on me. Shoot the messenger when you can't handle the message. We all get it. It is obvious to us all. I would respond to posts where you actually have something to say; clearly this issue is above your pay grade. Its no wonder, however, as I don't believe there is anyone that can defend McCarthey's character as, back to my original point, he has none.
 
My apologies. It is no wonder we had a disconnect. I jumped right into the discussion without recognizing the fact that most McCarthey and Trump supports have no idea what character actually is. Forgive me.

Nope. Anyone with such an insulting, snarky, condescending attitude in their posts is not looking for forgiveness or, more importantly, honest, rational debate.

Have a nice life.
 
Back
Top Bottom