Subvert the Presidency -- or to keep it from going onto a dangerous and destructive path?
It isn't our Constitutional Framework for a group of individuals to subvert the office of the president to keep it from going into destructive waters.
If you want that, it isn't America. I don't say that in a "take off the hijab, this is 'Merica" way. It simply means what you say here is fundamentally outlandish at best and home-grown terror at worst. Yep. I'm calling your views here "terroristic". You are swaying in motion to the idea there is a monster in the white house THEREFORE IT IS OK that 1/3 of our governmental processes be subverted "in the name of liberty".
I don't know what country or nation or system is being described above, but it is not here in the United States.
If you didn't know, we have a 3-tiered system of checks and balances. A "loosely-affiliated group of individuals managing the office of the president in the name of freedom" is just JIHAD from within instead of abroad. <--- The in bold I just described is not any part of the check/balance system of our nation.
Are you calling for a revolution? Are you saying the checks and balances we have enjoyed for over 200 years is antiquated and needs revising? I am not saying you are wrong or bad if that's the case. But what you describe is NOT any part of the Constitution. How can anyone complain if they think the president is shitting on the Constitution when they say it's OK to shit on the Constitution when it means stopping a crazy president.
Also, aren't you the one who does not believe in loose coalition of individuals working in secret to accomplish a goal of subverting an American agenda? You are the one who does not believe in that idea, EXCEPT where it applies to the NYT anon article that attacks the current filth in office.
No JFK cabal for you. Not possible. But here, you say not only is it possible but right and proper.
Decide.
Evidence now suggests that the President is in a very bad mental condition
What "evidence"? There is "evidence" now? Do you guys hear yourselves? It is no different than insane Guliani or these crazy people when for them it is FACT when the claims say what they want to hear but "in dispute" when the claims say what they do not want to hear. How are you different? (<--- real question). You say openly you are not psych or soc or any of that, but you say "evidence" as if you received some forensic report and have made your expert determination. I like to think we are better than that. I keep saying those who interact in this forum (MAYBE I AM WRONG) have ability and propensity for higher thought............. based on the idea we are able to comprehend saeculums and turnings and express the ideas rationally. But for some part of it, we are going into low places acting just like the people we call "crazy".
It isn't our Constitutional Framework for a group of individuals to subvert the office of the president to keep it from going into destructive waters.
If you want that, it isn't America. I don't say that in a "take off the hijab, this is 'Merica" way. It simply means what you say here is fundamentally outlandish at best and home-grown terror at worst. Yep. I'm calling your views here "terroristic". You are swaying in motion to the idea there is a monster in the white house THEREFORE IT IS OK that 1/3 of our governmental processes be subverted "in the name of liberty".
I don't know what country or nation or system is being described above, but it is not here in the United States.
If you didn't know, we have a 3-tiered system of checks and balances. A "loosely-affiliated group of individuals managing the office of the president in the name of freedom" is just JIHAD from within instead of abroad. <--- The in bold I just described is not any part of the check/balance system of our nation.
Are you calling for a revolution? Are you saying the checks and balances we have enjoyed for over 200 years is antiquated and needs revising? I am not saying you are wrong or bad if that's the case. But what you describe is NOT any part of the Constitution. How can anyone complain if they think the president is shitting on the Constitution when they say it's OK to shit on the Constitution when it means stopping a crazy president.
Also, aren't you the one who does not believe in loose coalition of individuals working in secret to accomplish a goal of subverting an American agenda? You are the one who does not believe in that idea, EXCEPT where it applies to the NYT anon article that attacks the current filth in office.
No JFK cabal for you. Not possible. But here, you say not only is it possible but right and proper.
Decide.
Evidence now suggests that the President is in a very bad mental condition
What "evidence"? There is "evidence" now? Do you guys hear yourselves? It is no different than insane Guliani or these crazy people when for them it is FACT when the claims say what they want to hear but "in dispute" when the claims say what they do not want to hear. How are you different? (<--- real question). You say openly you are not psych or soc or any of that, but you say "evidence" as if you received some forensic report and have made your expert determination. I like to think we are better than that. I keep saying those who interact in this forum (MAYBE I AM WRONG) have ability and propensity for higher thought............. based on the idea we are able to comprehend saeculums and turnings and express the ideas rationally. But for some part of it, we are going into low places acting just like the people we call "crazy".