Trump has 24 hours to decide

[calamity]

I got you to actually list them; my work is done.

Well, since you were ignorant of the names, I considered it my public service for the day.

 

[ocean515]

Nothing deep really, that your posts are inane is obvious.

As opposed to the drive by flaming/baiting/trolling, how about an example of why you think my posts are inane?

 

[ocean515]

Issuing a subpoena is not an act of violence.
Issuing a subpoena not violence.

Laws are not acts of violence.
Laws are not violence.

Says you.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Says you.

Well, me and the English language.

But you are right that these things can mean w/e you want them to mean in newspeak.


Doesn't it trip a warning light in your head that you have to believe these sorts of nonsensical things to continue to adhere to your world view?
It seems like that'd be a red flag you could see.

 

[snakestretcher]

Trump should show up and defend himself.


As if he ever would. :roll:

His lawyers know damn well he would dig his own grave and will do anything to prevent him having to speak with a committee he can't control.

 

[snakestretcher]

I think that Donald Trump should go to the hearings himself and testify under oath.

Yes, and pigs might fly...

 

[snakestretcher]

Says you.

Which laws are acts of violence? Which subpoenas are acts of violence? You're obviously convinced they are for some unfathomable reason (desperation?), so give up your 'evidence'.

 

[ocean515]

Well, me and the English language.

But you are right that these things can mean w/e you want them to mean in newspeak.


Doesn't it trip a warning light in your head that you have to believe these sorts of nonsensical things to continue to adhere to your world view?
It seems like that'd be a red flag you could see.

Ask anyone who has received a subpoena to appear and testify how they felt when they received it.

 

[ocean515]

Which laws are acts of violence? Which subpoenas are acts of violence? You're obviously convinced they are for some unfathomable reason (desperation?), so give up your 'evidence'.

Chill out mate, your opinion is worthless to me. Think whatever you want.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Ask anyone who has received a subpoena to appear and testify how they felt when they received it.

Someone's feelings are not at all the same as how a word is defined.
That is an entirely irrelevant herring.

It's not about feelings.
It's about words.
Words mean things.

If you have to change the meaning of a word to keep a sentence from being a lie, that's a big warning sign that you could be experiencing cognitive dissonance.
It's a warning sign that we should each be able to see ourselves.

The meanings of words is how we communicate.
When you take a word with an established meaning, like violence, and try to make it out that the word applies to filing paperwork, you really should question why you are so intent on changing the plain meaning of the word.

If you have to change the plain meaning of a word to fit your political perspective, that could be a sign that your political perspective is what actually needs changing.

You may disagree.
Perhaps you feel it's perfectly normal to change the meanings of words so that a statement is no longer a lie.
idk
Is that what you feel?

The "coup" business is fascinating as it is such an obvious example.
When challenged on the use of the word, most other posters have made it as far as googling the definition. Then they realize that the word does not actually apply. I think one other went as far to c&p the definition before realizing that the definition didn't apply.

You're the first one on DP ( that I recall anyway ) to try the newspeak angle.

 

[gdgyva]

Trump has to decide by tomorrow whether or not he will send lawyers to either call witnesses or question witnesses in his impeachment hearing. He will have to notify the committee by tomorrow if his side is going to call witnesses and to be part of the process or not be part of it. If he wants to stay out of it and let his surrogates fight it out for him politically, he can do that too. But it seems that for a man who did nothing but complain about the process and 'having no voice' in the proceedings that he would be anxious to get some representation in those hearings through witnesses or other evidentiary material his lawyers could bring to proceedings.

Personally, other than calling Adam Schiff or Hunter Biden as witnesses, there's no defense for his crime and neither of these two witnesses could exonerate him from that crime. It would appear to the public that it's grasping at straws for any defense they could muster up. That may just be a double edged sword for the republican strategy and may backfire 'bigly' on them.

Trump is NEVER going to go anywhere near these proceedings....he doesnt have to, and his people will keep him a million miles away

you may want him to SHOW UP....but that is a democrats/progressives wet dream...nothing more

wish in one hand....crap in the other....see which one fills up faster

 

[calamity]

Trump is NEVER going to go anywhere near these proceedings....he doesnt have to, and his people will keep him a million miles away

you may want him to SHOW UP....but that is a democrats/progressives wet dream...nothing more

wish in one hand....crap in the other....see which one fills up faster

Yes, he's hiding behind the politicians who will cover up his crimes. We know.

 

[gdgyva]

Yes, he's hiding behind the politicians who will cover up his crimes. We know.

If ANY POLITICIAN ever goes near a hearing where a process crime can come out of it, they are an IDIOT now

liberal or conservative, democrat or republican....doesnt matter

because all the "other" side would love to happen is for "you" the witness to "slip up" and they can come after you for perjury

After Bill Clintion, i dont think any MAJOR politician will go within a 100 ft of a hearing like that

 

[Bullseye]

I'm thinking Trump and his crew should forcefully and unequivocally denounce Jerky Hagler's invitation. To accept any roll in this looniness is to grant it a shred of legitimacy it doesn't deserve.

 

[JustHanging]

Trump should show up and defend himself.


As if he ever would. :roll:

I think Trump is a big a coward as he believes his base to be. That's one reason he understands them so well imo.

 

[ocean515]

Someone's feelings are not at all the same as how a word is defined.
That is an entirely irrelevant herring.

It's not about feelings.
It's about words.
Words mean things.

If you have to change the meaning of a word to keep a sentence from being a lie, that's a big warning sign that you could be experiencing cognitive dissonance.
It's a warning sign that we should each be able to see ourselves.

The meanings of words is how we communicate.
When you take a word with an established meaning, like violence, and try to make it out that the word applies to filing paperwork, you really should question why you are so intent on changing the plain meaning of the word.

If you have to change the plain meaning of a word to fit your political perspective, that could be a sign that your political perspective is what actually needs changing.

You may disagree.
Perhaps you feel it's perfectly normal to change the meanings of words so that a statement is no longer a lie.
idk
Is that what you feel?

The "coup" business is fascinating as it is such an obvious example.
When challenged on the use of the word, most other posters have made it as far as googling the definition. Then they realize that the word does not actually apply. I think one other went as far to c&p the definition before realizing that the definition didn't apply.

You're the first one on DP ( that I recall anyway ) to try the newspeak angle.

It's not irrelevant, and it's not a herring. That's just your opinion, which you can't demand everyone agree to.

 

[Pound4abrown]

Yes, he wanted to be heard, here's his chance

All you heard from him and his surrogates is how unfair this all was. To not send his attorney is basically saying that was all the bull**** people figured it was.
I hope Trump and his supporters don't get hernias moving that goalpost again. (and again) (and again).

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It's not irrelevant, and it's not a herring. That's just your opinion, which you can't demand everyone agree to.

I'm not demanding you agree with it.
I'm just fascinated.

I wish you'd expound on it more actually.

How do you rationalize changing the plain meaning of a word to make a statement fit the facts?
Are you even able to tell that the word "violence" does not normally includes filing paperwork?

Does it seem to you that filing paperwork has always been included among the list of violent actions?
Does it seem normal to you?
Do you still retain some inkling that calling a subpoena a violent act is a bit unusual?

 

[ocean515]

I'm not demanding you agree with it.
I'm just fascinated.

I wish you'd expound on it more actually.

How do you rationalize changing the plain meaning of a word to make a statement fit the facts?
Are you even able to tell that the word "violence" does not normally includes filing paperwork?

Does it seem to you that filing paperwork has always been included among the list of violent actions?
Does it seem normal to you?
Do you still retain some inkling that calling a subpoena a violent act is a bit unusual?

If you invent some narrative out of the blue to create an argument, how do you expect someone to take it seriously?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If you invent some narrative out of the blue to create an argument, how do you expect someone to take it seriously?

Flow cause separate, wrist huge — watch — sparkling turn interest event smelly, partner?