Jump to content

The End of Jeff Sessions


DarterBlue

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, concha said:

There has never been a definitive interpretation of the 14th amendment, though contemporary statements by its author tend to favor the president's view.

The appointment of Session's Chief of Staff is not a clear violation of law  The rules of succession given the VRA are unclear at best. 

I don't recall your outrage at the last guy for his lies, use of his "phone and pen", the killing of US citizens without due process...  ahhhh, but he was a fellow leftist.

Trump is actually restoring our status from the damage done by the apologist weenie we had until 2017.  Status and respect are not the same as having fellow leftists liking what we do.

How are you validating this statement, what's you source? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, concha said:

The foreign media tends to be even more leftist than our own.

I don't give a rat's ass what they say.

Our president's job is not to fellate the rest of the world and their press. Really. It's true.

Perhaps that is one of the big differences between leftist globalists and American conservatives.  I care what the president is doing to help our people and defend our sovereignty.  Leftists look to find approval from Angele Merkel, far left virtue signalers and correspondents from Univision and Le Monde.

Your assumption is that they can never report the truth or represent reality.  That is conveniently dismissive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Horsefly said:

How are you validating this statement, what's you source? 

He has none. It is just a lame attempt to justify the unjustifiable. That is what I find so frustrating with this man. Unlike some of the loony right on this board he actually has a brain in his head, but chooses to suspend it when it's convenient. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DarterBlue said:

It seems pretty self explanatory to me. I would think a middling High School grad should be able to get what it says. 

You interpret as you wish. As usual.

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is there for a reason and a look at the author's views make things clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Horsefly said:

How are you validating this statement, what's you source? 

It is my own opinion.  Reject it as you like.

It is based on a nation looking out for itself rather than winning a popularity contest because a certain president was just as leftist as the rest of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DarterBlue said:

Actually, that would be you, as in Concha. But you will never see that for you choose to be blind as a bat.

"I know you are but what am I".

The amendment has never been clarified by SCOTUS and the author of it was pretty clear in contemporaneous comments.

You have your ass and the opinion you wish to yank out of it. Congrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Horsefly said:

Your assumption is that they can never report the truth or represent reality.  That is conveniently dismissive

No.

Truth is an interesting thing.  You could write truth about a guy like Hitler that makes him seem like a great and magnanimous leader. It all depends about what truth is used (full employment and the autobahn... leave out the Shoah?) and the tone and spin put upon it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, concha said:

No.

Truth is an interesting thing.  You could write truth about a guy like Hitler that makes him seem like a great and magnanimous leader. It all depends about what truth is used (full employment and the autobahn... leave out the Shoah?) and the tone and spin put upon it.

But the whole truth shall set you free. Intentionally leaving off facts is untruth. But in the world of spin ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, concha said:

No.

Truth is an interesting thing.  You could write truth about a guy like Hitler that makes him seem like a great and magnanimous leader. It all depends about what truth is used (full employment and the autobahn... leave out the Shoah?) and the tone and spin put upon it.

But you rejected overseas media simply b/c they are leftist.  The presumption being theycant report on truth.  Otherwise, why note their leanings? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Horsefly said:

But you rejected overseas media simply b/c they are leftist.  The presumption being theycant report on truth.  Otherwise, why note their leanings? 

I get the leftist point-of-view here. It is everywhere on the dial.

The fact of the matter is I see things differently.  To the left, telling NATO allies to get militaries worthy of the name and stop sponging off us is rude and divisive.  I see their irresponsibility and willingness to rely on American lives and treasure to be offensive and more than worthy of rebuke. The left did not make any issue of the American left and the EU making a huge deal out of the Putin threat yet making themselves dependent on his oil and gas, when they could have bought from us. Just examples...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...