Trump's new claims would have been nothing short of apologizing Hitler's invasion that started WWII

[CdnFox]

51 minutes ago, myata said:

NO: and the answer is right before our eyes. 

A loser is right before our eyes and his name is Myata .

[myata]

And once again, the answers are right before our eyes. Buffoons full of themselves never act in the interests of the others. Reality can be ignored, but it always comes back to remind of itself. There's nothing here that couldn't be seen in plain and clear sight.

And obviously, the deadbrains squirm, whine and throw sh*t around exactly because they know that they can say nothing that would make it go away. Drown any meaningful conversation in their brainless sh*t as the only sad strategy. All right before our eyes.

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, myata said:

And once again, the answers are right before our eyes.

And once again you spam the forum with gibberish. 

[CouchPotato]

7 hours ago, myata said:

Reality can be ignored, but it always comes back to remind of itself. There's nothing here that couldn't be seen in plain and clear sight.

You mean Biden's dementia. Yes, it was in plain sight for a few years now. We knew.

Edited July 27, 2024 by CouchPotato

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

You mean Biden's dementia. Yes, it was in plain sight for a few years now. We knew. And what's more, we knew that we knew. But we did nothing.

What do you mean we did nothing? We pointed it out clear as a bell and they came back and called us racist/ homophobic/ deplorable/ conspiracy theorists for having mentioned it in the first place

[CouchPotato]

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

What do you mean we did nothing? We pointed it out clear as a bell and they came back and called us racist/ homophobic/ deplorable/ conspiracy theorists for having mentioned it in the first place

Fair enough. I am editing it back. I was just trying to make it more dramatic.

Edited July 27, 2024 by CouchPotato

[myata]

11 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

You mean

I can't be responsible for other folks issues, eyes or brain or both sadly. If they cannot see or take in the obvious that's a diagnosis. Obviously.

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, myata said:

I can't be responsible for other folks issues, eyes or brain or both sadly. 

Heck, you can't even be responsible for your own

[myata]

We have to stay on and watch it. So that there's not a chance anyone could squeak "we didn't know".

Trump: "It'll be fixed. You won't have to vote any more".

"You know what? It’ll be fixed! It’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote any more, my beautiful Christians,”

We saw and knew everything here. All there's to know.

 

[myata]

I can think of two quite obvious possibilities: either he's mentally unstable; not mildly impaired in communications like Joe; but seriously damaged, cannot think clearly, throws up random, meaningless rambling; or bent on becoming a dictator, like his praised and cherished bunch. What other logical options, based on own words?

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, myata said:

We have to stay on and watch it.

 

Sigh. He's probably watching the 'snow' on the tv after the station signs off for the night again. He thinks there's hidden messages. 

[User]

38 minutes ago, myata said:

We have to stay on and watch it. So that there's not a chance anyone could squeak "we didn't know".

Trump: "It'll be fixed. You won't have to vote any more".

"You know what? It’ll be fixed! It’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote any more, my beautiful Christians,”

We saw and knew everything here. All there's to know.

 

And? 

What exactly is it you are arguing here or saying we have seen?

 

[myata]

I personally don't think that politicians pretending to be in the fold of democratic system should be allowed to make openly statements threatening constitutional rights of the citizens. At the very least, he should be standing before the Congress explaining the meaning of his statements and how they can be understood by a reasonable, honest citizen.

Most certainly citizens must have the right to end their democracy if that's what they like and think but it cannot happen by default through lies and loud mouth. Now, that would be stupid and irresponsible.

Edited July 27, 2024 by myata

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, myata said:

I personally don't think that politicians pretending to be in the fold of democratic system should be allowed to make openly statements threatening constitutional rights of the citizens.

You have no idea what the constitutional rights of the citizens are. You can't even speak in proper sentences. So you're not really qualified to speak on a subject

[User]

4 hours ago, myata said:

I personally don't think that politicians pretending to be in the fold of democratic system should be allowed to make openly statements threatening constitutional rights of the citizens. At the very least, he should be standing before the Congress explaining the meaning of his statements and how they can be understood by a reasonable, honest citizen.

Most certainly citizens must have the right to end their democracy if that's what they like and think but it cannot happen by default through lies and loud mouth. Now, that would be stupid and irresponsible.

So, your idea of protecting constitutional rights threatening the constitutional right of free speech?

I have a feeling you are just fine with Democrats threatening constitutional rights when it comes to gun control. 
 

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, User said:

So, your idea of protecting constitutional rights threatening the constitutional right of free speech?

I have a feeling you are just fine with Democrats threatening constitutional rights when it comes to gun control. 
 

I think you're being wildly optimistic thinking he has "ideas" .

[myata]

My idea is that any candidate, appointee etc in the democratic system has to affirm full and unconditional acceptance of its principles. Or face an expulsion, via due process. One cannot undermine the principles of the democracy, knowingly or otherwise, while claiming the right to manage it.

Sure, as said citizens have the right to end their democracy any time they like. But there has to be a clear process for that, for example, a referendum. It cannot happen again, via boredom and/or drowning in loudmouth lies. That would be irrational and stupid.

[myata]

And before any more lying bullsh*t, freedom of speech applies fully and unconditionally for the citizens. Officials and participants in the democratic governance though cannot undermine its principles, such as wanton lying of stolen elections and such. It used to be a tradition, common sense but it isn't working anymore.

The sanction has to be swift and strong, to discourage reoccurrence. Otherwise grain by grain and step by step the democracy will be eroded, just as it's unfolding right in front of our eyes.

[Michael Hardner]

On 7/27/2024 at 3:37 PM, myata said:

I can think of two quite obvious possibilities: either he's mentally unstable; not mildly impaired in communications like Joe; but seriously damaged, cannot think clearly, throws up random, meaningless rambling; or bent on becoming a dictator, like his praised and cherished bunch. What other logical options, based on own words?

What you're missing is that The system has morphed into one where getting attention, itself, is valuable.  Not the content of the message.

So... a persona, mass media, and clicks/mentions replace character, articulated ideas, and analysis by a thinking public.

This characteristic of the political sphere applies to all participants.

We, the public, have to respond by rejection of this model.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, myata said:

 Officials and participants in the democratic governance though cannot undermine its principles, such as wanton lying of stolen elections and such. It used to be a tradition, common sense but it isn't working anymore.

A seismic change in governance had to come in to put down this new tyranny of the unthinking masses.

The model of a thinking, engaged, and responsible Public has been replaced by a consumer model with impressions, tastes, and such supplanting deep consideration and sober thought.

[myata]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

We, the public, have to respond by rejection of this model.

I tried to discuss that in another topic. A group of conscious political players can try a new political model based on conscious involvement of citizens throughout the cycle. Either, it could point a new alternative direction. Or if the circus still wins, the democracy of this type can be doomed.

[myata]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

thinking, engaged, and responsible Public has been replaced by a consumer model with impressions, tastes, and such supplanting deep consideration and sober thought

Yes, there's a truth to the thought that only active and responsible citizens can keep democracy alive, any system can be corrupted otherwise, and will be. We're living to see it unfolding right before our eyes. A meaningful change is called for, and needed desperately.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, myata said:

I tried to discuss that in another topic. A group of conscious political players can try a new political model based on conscious involvement of citizens throughout the cycle. Either, it could point a new alternative direction. Or if the circus still wins, the democracy of this type can be doomed.

The circus is built on MSM which is dying.  For the "internet" the choice is between algorithm-directed content or boards like this.

People will have to choose boards like this in the end, because the other will reveal itself as fake.

It's a possibility anyway... A guess...

I feel that a NONYMOUS PUBLIC sphere is what was intended for the Democratic system, with limited anonymous content.  That would fit the bill IMO.

2 minutes ago, myata said:

Yes, there's a truth to the thought that only active and responsible citizens can keep democracy alive, any system can be corrupted otherwise, and will be. We're living to see it unfolding right before our eyes. A meaningful change is called for, and needed desperately.

How, how, how... To get the message across...

[myata]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

To get the message across...

The process have to be build to involve citizens continuously throughout the political cycle. Townhalls on important issues; country-wide non-partisan discussions; plebiscites, both binding and informational. Nominations, nothing like the pageants now, the opposite of it: down to the point, interactive and informative. If and once a citizen becomes a consumer, advertising is 80% effective. Deafening contradicting messages result in numbness of mind. It's a one way road to total and irreversible alienation.

[User]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I feel that a NONYMOUS PUBLIC sphere is what was intended for the Democratic system, with limited anonymous content.  That would fit the bill IMO.

Anonymous speech is free speech. What are these limits you speak of?