Roger Stone says trump should “declare martial law” to

Page 9 of 18 [ 276 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 18  Next

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,144
Location: Queens, NYC

14 Sep 2020, 10:18 pm

It’s bad.....but we’re going to get through this without a civil war.

The economy here stayed quite bullish until this COVID thing. Over ten years of steady job growth and 3.5% unemployment in the end. Not giving Trump the credit. The credit goes to our nation.

Stone is an abject nut, and should be regarded as one.

WE, AS A NATION, WILL NOT LET TRUMP MESS WITH THE CONSTITUTION.



emotrtkey
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 445

14 Sep 2020, 11:38 pm

aghogday wrote:
And It's Never Christian to Support Someone Who Shoots someone on 5th Avenue, Either.

It is the Total
Opposite of Love;


I disagree. If the only other candidate who could win wants to kill 600,000 innocent people every year, I'd say Christians have a duty to vote for the candidate who only killed 1 person.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,024

14 Sep 2020, 11:56 pm

emotrtkey wrote:
aghogday wrote:
And It's Never Christian to Support Someone Who Shoots someone on 5th Avenue, Either.

It is the Total
Opposite of Love;


I disagree. If the only other candidate who could win wants to kill 600,000 innocent people every year, I'd say Christians have a duty to vote for the candidate who only killed 1 person.


Well, You Get Extra Credit for actually finally Replying;

i guess, You are talking about Abortion without Science too;
As Science Clearly Shows that if the Catholic Church Ever Got its
Way to Outlaw Abortion that We'd Have As Many Back Alley Abortions
As We Did Before Rowe Versus Wade in '73 as Abortion Now is at its
Lowest Levels since '73 for Planned Parenthood Education Now and Widely
Available Contraceptives too; If the Catholic Church Could Get Rid of Available
Contraceptives, if they could as well; The Abortions Would Only Sky Rocket More...
Not Only Would We Have As Many Abortions as Assessed by the World Health Organization
We would Also Have more Overall Suffering, Maiming and Permanent Disability too; But What
is most Definitely
True, Trump's Failure
to Model Appropriate
Mask Behavior, Insure
Appropriate Contact Tracing
is the Rule and Even at Least
do Social Distancing in indoor Rally
Events that HE DID NOT DO AS RECENTLY AS TODAY
Would in Effect Over the Last 6 months Save Tens of Thousands of Lives
As Truly To Support Trump is to Support the Killing of Tens of Thousands
of Life Standing Upon This Planet as Ignorance Kills again and again so many
more than
Just one
Person
on 5th
Avenue;
You've already
Showed a Disregard
For Science in Your Opinions;
So there is really nothing i can
Really Do it seems to Help you See More Truth in Light...

That's Sad my FRiEnD; The Saddest Part of all is Failure
in Loving those who are Different...

And really Showing it, in WANTING them to Pursue their

Own Flavor of Heaven now as

PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT

THAN YOU;

LIVE AND increase
Your Human Potential
For Love or Fall the Other Way
As the Pendulum Swings that way too...


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,577
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

15 Sep 2020, 5:00 am

emotrtkey wrote:
aghogday wrote:
And It's Never Christian to Support Someone Who Shoots someone on 5th Avenue, Either.

It is the Total
Opposite of Love;


I disagree. If the only other candidate who could win wants to kill 600,000 innocent people every year, I'd say Christians have a duty to vote for the candidate who only killed 1 person.


500 faith leaders, many of them Christians, disagree with you as they’ve recently all signed a letter endorsing Biden & Harris:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/faith-le ... 17e14163c0


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


emotrtkey
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 445

15 Sep 2020, 8:59 am

goldfish21 wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
aghogday wrote:
And It's Never Christian to Support Someone Who Shoots someone on 5th Avenue, Either.

It is the Total
Opposite of Love;


I disagree. If the only other candidate who could win wants to kill 600,000 innocent people every year, I'd say Christians have a duty to vote for the candidate who only killed 1 person.


500 faith leaders, many of them Christians, disagree with you as they’ve recently all signed a letter endorsing Biden & Harris:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/faith-le ... 17e14163c0


It doesn't make any difference what those faith leaders say. Anyone can identify as whatever they want so labels are meaningless. If they all claimed to be God would you tell us God endorses Biden? The fact remains that Christians have a duty to oppose immorality and vote for the better candidate.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,144
Location: Queens, NYC

15 Sep 2020, 9:00 am

God stays out of politics....at least He should....



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 57,205
Location: Stendec

15 Sep 2020, 9:01 am

emotrtkey wrote:
... Christians have a duty to oppose immorality and vote for the better candidate.
Even if it's G^D's own will that we get the leaders we deserve instead.


_________________
 
• Veritas Illuminata • Semper Illuminans • Custodiamus Veritas •
• Et Serviunt Qui Non Videntur •


goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,577
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

15 Sep 2020, 10:29 am

emotrtkey wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
aghogday wrote:
And It's Never Christian to Support Someone Who Shoots someone on 5th Avenue, Either.

It is the Total
Opposite of Love;


I disagree. If the only other candidate who could win wants to kill 600,000 innocent people every year, I'd say Christians have a duty to vote for the candidate who only killed 1 person.


500 faith leaders, many of them Christians, disagree with you as they’ve recently all signed a letter endorsing Biden & Harris:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/faith-le ... 17e14163c0


It doesn't make any difference what those faith leaders say. Anyone can identify as whatever they want so labels are meaningless. If they all claimed to be God would you tell us God endorses Biden? The fact remains that Christians have a duty to oppose immorality and vote for the better candidate.


:?

So now you’re endorsing Biden?

You can’t possibly mean the orange guy.. a pathological liar, serial adulterer, thief/conman/grifter, alleged rapist, alleged pedophile, convicted fraudster, malignant narcissist & all around human embodiment of the 7 deadly sins.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,577
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

15 Sep 2020, 11:09 am

Thought of the moment:

I wonder if the heads of branches of the US Armed Forces are having meetings right now contemplating their roles should trump and his goons attempt a fascist takeover of the USA? :?

AFAIK, they all swear an oath to defend the constitution, not the president.. and it reads:

“I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God)."

Sooo, since the Constitution of the USA sets out the rules for presidential elections, if trumpty dumpty attempts some sort of unconstitutional f**kery in order to hold onto power/advance his crazy agenda/stay out of jail, are armed forces members not obligated to defends the US constitution against said domestic enemy?

Yes, I read the bit about following orders from the president, too.. but are they not also trained to Not follow unlawful orders? :?


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 57,205
Location: Stendec

15 Sep 2020, 11:15 am

goldfish21 wrote:
Thought of the moment:

I wonder if the heads of branches of the US Armed Forces are having meetings right now contemplating their roles should trump and his goons attempt a fascist takeover of the USA? :?

AFAIK, they all swear an oath to defend the constitution, not the president... and it reads:

“I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God)."

...

I read the bit about following orders from the president, too.. but are they not also trained to not follow unlawful orders?
Correct on all counts.

On the one hand, even enlisted members are told that they do not have to follow an illegal order, and that they should also make damned certain that the order as stated was illegal under the circumstances in effect when the order was given!

On the other hand, for most enlisted members, it is better to carry out the order as stated and worry about the legalities later.

On the gripping hand, "I was just following orders" carries very little weight in a civilian war-crimes court for officers and enlisteds alike.


_________________
 
• Veritas Illuminata • Semper Illuminans • Custodiamus Veritas •
• Et Serviunt Qui Non Videntur •


eyelessshiver
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 12 Jun 2020
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 297

15 Sep 2020, 12:51 pm

Trump isn't going to stop abortion, though (he hasn't yet and he wouldn't even if re-elected). Even if he could make it illegal (which wouldn't happen), by doing so, it would just force it underground. Trust me, if women don't want to have a baby, they figure out a way to get rid of the kid, before or after it's born. We've seen it happen, with horrific results. The number of babies found in dumpsters in China was enormous, because no one wanted to have a girl, during the one-child policy. You're better off making it humane and safe to do so in the early stages, to help people plan their lives out if they need it. Not everyone can be expected to know when it's right to have a baby, and many are conceived by accident...so help people rather than take their rights away. It's the best option, even if it isn't always pretty.

Eventually they would physically remove Trump from office if he lost, because it would be illegal for him to be there. I doubt that would happen, but it might take some prodding anyway. If he wins the election that's different, or if he's able to prove to the relevant authorities that there was some error, and he really did win, then I think we'll have to accept that as a legitimate win....and if we don't, he will have those authorities on his side. The possibility for civil war is 0. There might be riots and so forth, but there's always the possibility for that. America is a stable country, things don't just fall apart here over night. Even with four years of the worst possible president yet, things have still held up overall. Let's not get hysterical and lose our heads and be irrational now (not sure if that's really an option for some people though, looking at how people behave).



emotrtkey
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 445

15 Sep 2020, 3:56 pm

goldfish21 wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
emotrtkey wrote:
aghogday wrote:
And It's Never Christian to Support Someone Who Shoots someone on 5th Avenue, Either.

It is the Total
Opposite of Love;


I disagree. If the only other candidate who could win wants to kill 600,000 innocent people every year, I'd say Christians have a duty to vote for the candidate who only killed 1 person.


500 faith leaders, many of them Christians, disagree with you as they’ve recently all signed a letter endorsing Biden & Harris:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/faith-le ... 17e14163c0


It doesn't make any difference what those faith leaders say. Anyone can identify as whatever they want so labels are meaningless. If they all claimed to be God would you tell us God endorses Biden? The fact remains that Christians have a duty to oppose immorality and vote for the better candidate.


:?

So now you’re endorsing Biden?

You can’t possibly mean the orange guy.. a pathological liar, serial adulterer, thief/conman/grifter, alleged rapist, alleged pedophile, convicted fraudster, malignant narcissist & all around human embodiment of the 7 deadly sins.


I definitely won't be voting for a guy who likes little boys rubbing his hairy legs and jumping in his lap or a guy who can't keep his hand off little girls, sniffing their hair, fondling and groping them even when he knows the cameras are watching. I'd hate to think what a guy like that does when the cameras aren't around.



cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

15 Sep 2020, 4:25 pm

But you're voting for a guy who doesn't associate heat with fire?


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 57,205
Location: Stendec

15 Sep 2020, 6:18 pm

eyelessshiver wrote:
... if women don't want to have a baby, they figure out a way to get rid of the kid, before or after it's born...
^ THIS ^

Quoted for truth and posterity.

There are many abortifactants available on both the open and black markets.  Sadly, most of them are too expensive for those women in greatest need -- women with little or no money to spare.

However, the so-called "Morning-After Pill" is a type of emergency birth control (contraception), used to prevent pregnancy for women who've had unprotected sex, who've been raped, or whose birth control method has failed.

Morning-after pills contain either levonorgestrel (Plan B One-Step, Aftera, others) or ulipristal acetate (ella).  Levonorgestrel is available over-the-counter without a prescription; ulipristal acetate is available only with a prescription.

Morning-after pills do not end a pregnancy that has implanted in the uterine lining.  They work primarily by delaying or preventing ovulation.

The morning-after pill isn't the same as mifepristone (Mifeprex), also known as RU-486 or the "Abortion Pill", which terminates an established pregnancy -- one in which the fertilized egg has attached to the uterine wall and has begun to develop.

The only barriers to availability are poverty and misogynistic "morality" laws.

:roll: Morality ... what a concept!


_________________
 
• Veritas Illuminata • Semper Illuminans • Custodiamus Veritas •
• Et Serviunt Qui Non Videntur •


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,428
Location: Long Island, New York

15 Sep 2020, 9:05 pm

Trump Health Aide Pushes Bizarre Conspiracies and Warns of Armed Revolt

Quote:
The top communications official at the powerful cabinet department in charge of combating the coronavirus made outlandish and false accusations on Sunday that career government scientists were engaging in “sedition” in their handling of the pandemic and that left-wing hit squads were preparing for armed insurrection after the election.

Michael R. Caputo, the assistant secretary of public affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services, accused the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of harboring a “resistance unit” determined to undermine President Trump, even if that opposition bolsters the Covid-19 death toll.

Mr. Caputo, who has faced intense criticism for leading efforts to warp C.D.C. weekly bulletins to fit Mr. Trump’s pandemic narrative, suggested that he personally could be in danger from opponents of the administration. “If you carry guns, buy ammunition, ladies and gentlemen, because it’s going to be hard to get,” he urged his followers.

He went further, saying his physical health was in question, and his “mental health has definitely failed.”

“I don’t like being alone in Washington,” Mr. Caputo said, describing “shadows on the ceiling in my apartment, there alone, shadows are so long.” He also said the mounting number of Covid-19 deaths was taking a toll on him, telling his viewers, “You are not waking up every morning and talking about dead Americans.” The United States has lost more than 194,200 people to the virus. Mr. Caputo urged people to attend Trump rallies, but only with masks.

To a certain extent, Mr. Caputo’s comments in a video he hosted live on his personal Facebook page were simply an amplified version of remarks that the president himself has made. Both men have singled out government scientists and health officials as disloyal, suggested that the election will not be fairly decided, and insinuated that left-wing groups are secretly plotting to incite violence across the United States.

But Mr. Caputo’s attacks were more direct, and they came from one of the officials most responsible for shaping communications around the coronavirus.

C.D.C. scientists “haven’t gotten out of their sweatpants except for meetings at coffee shops” to plot “how they’re going to attack Donald Trump next,” Mr. Caputo said. “There are scientists who work for this government who do not want America to get well, not until after Joe Biden is president.”

A longtime Trump loyalist with no background in health care, Mr. Caputo, 58, was appointed by the White House to his post in April, at a time when the president’s aides suspected the health secretary, Alex M. Azar II, of protecting his public image instead of Mr. Trump’s. Mr. Caputo coordinates the messaging of an 80,000-employee department that is at the center of the pandemic response, overseeing the Food and Drug Administration, the C.D.C. and the National Institutes of Health.
Editors’ Picks
That Person Floating Over the East River Is Riding a $12,000 Water Toy
Guitars Are Back, Baby!
Why Are Men Still Explaining Things to Women?

“Mr. Caputo is a critical, integral part of the president’s coronavirus response, leading on public messaging as Americans need public health information to defeat the Covid-19 pandemic,” the Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement.

Mr. Caputo’s Facebook comments were another sign of the administration’s deep antipathy and suspicion for its own scientific experts across the bureaucracy and the growing political pressure on those experts to toe a political line favorable to Mr. Trump.

This weekend, first Politico, then The New York Times and other news media organizations published accounts of how Mr. Caputo and a top aide had routinely worked to revise, delay or even scuttle the core health bulletins of the C.D.C. to paint the administration’s pandemic response in a more positive light. The C.D.C.’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports had previously been so thoroughly shielded from political interference that political appointees only saw them just before they were published.

Mr. Caputo’s 26-minute broadside on Facebook against scientists, the news media and Democrats was also another example of a senior administration official stoking public anxiety about the election and conspiracy theories about the “deep state” — the label Mr. Trump often attaches to the federal Civil Service bureaucracy.

Mr. Caputo predicted that the president would win re-election in November, but that his Democratic opponent, Joseph R. Biden Jr., would refuse to concede, leading to violence. “And when Donald Trump refuses to stand down at the inauguration, the shooting will begin,” he said. “The drills that you’ve seen are nothing.”

There were no obvious signs from administration officials on Monday that Mr. Caputo’s job was in danger. On the contrary, Mr. Trump again added his voice to the administration’s science denialism. As the president visited California to show solidarity with the fire-ravaged West, he challenged the established science of climate change, declaring, “It will start getting cooler.” He added: “Just watch. I don’t think science knows, actually.”

Mr. Caputo’s remarks also dovetailed in part with those of Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime confidant of both Mr. Caputo and Mr. Trump. Mr. Stone, whose 40-month prison sentence for lying to Congress was commuted by the president in July, told the conspiracy website Infowars on Friday that Mr. Trump should consider declaring martial law if he lost re-election.

Grant Smith, a lawyer for Mr. Stone, was among the followers who had joined Mr. Caputo’s talk on Sunday. Mr. Caputo has 5,000 Facebook friends, and his video was viewed more than 850 times. He has now shut down his account.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


emotrtkey
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 445

15 Sep 2020, 11:27 pm

Fnord wrote:
eyelessshiver wrote:
... if women don't want to have a baby, they figure out a way to get rid of the kid, before or after it's born...
[color=black]^ THIS ^

Quoted for truth and posterity.


If murdering a young baby had the same consequences as murdering an older baby (life in prison or the death penalty), there would be far less women murdering their babies (or paying someone else to kill them). The same is true if women have to risk their health or go to more trouble to do it. I think harsh consequences and making it difficult or more dangerous to kill a child is the best way to save innocent lives