Trump has tweeted he's resigning as President to take effect at the end of April

General chit-chat

Moderators: AMod, iMod

ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Trump has tweeted he's resigning as President to take effect at the end of April

Post by ForCruxSake »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: The President 'technically' needs congress to declare war, but that means diddly squat, since the US hasn't 'declared war' since WW11 yet it has been blowing up other countries ever since. As I understand it the President, without congress, can send 'troops' to harass the world's citizens. I don't know why people insist on calling the rape of Iraq the 'Iraq war'. It was nothing of the kind.
What has the declaration of war, or even Iraq, to do with what we were originally talking about? I'm not following your logic, particularly as Bush was not authorised to use military force until congress passed it. (Google 'Iraq Resolution' or ' Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002')
He might have got the congress vote, but he didn't need it.
That's utter nonsense.*

Can you provide any instance where that has been true?

The president is Commander in Chief to all the armed forces, but can only act, once congress has decided to declare war, and only then can he get to run that war more autonomously. He doesn't even get to decide on peace, which also falls to congress. The constitution was written such that no president would ever have the executive power of a British monarch, who had the power to declare war, without consulting parliament.

However, The War Powers Resolution, of 1973, extended the president's power by allowing him to commit troops anywhere he likes, 'for any reason at all', for no longer than 90 days... but then it contradicts itself, as section 2(c) of the resolution also states that the president’s power to initiate military action is limited to three provisos:
(1) a declaration of war
(2) specific statutory authorization
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces
-which somewhat limits the definition of 'for any reason at all'.

The third proviso should be seen as last but not least as, since 9-11, it has become the predominant citation for putting American 'boots on the ground', in the Middle East and Asia, since then. Oddly enough, Obama may be the only president to have exceeded the 90 day rule.

(* I always thought this forum was for intelligent people to express what they know, or can research, rather than just spew out any old nonsense that comes to mind. If I wanted to dole out unsupported opinions I'd think about quitting this forum and joining the Katie Hopkins Fan Club.)
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Trump has tweeted he's resigning as President to take effect at the end of April

Post by FlashDangerpants »

I was under the impression that Reagan managed to pull off the entire invasion of Grenada without consulting congress which I believe counts as one example of VT's general point. He was able to do so partly because he was able to cook up a wafer thin justification under the WPR in which he interpreted the presence of some Americans on the island as a hostage crisis, and the building of a new airport as a secret Soviet airbase. But the main reason he was able to get the job done without congressional support was because the invasion was local, small and cheap, so he could get the whole job done in 90 days and without assigning any new money.

I don't think the British king had sufficient powers to declare war at the time of the revolutionary war either. That hadn't been the prerogative of the monarch or his proxy since the Restoration. Ultimately, Parliament held the purse strings then just as Congress does in the US now, which is how Presidents and Prime Ministers are brought to heel.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Trump has tweeted he's resigning as President to take effect at the end of April

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

ForCruxSake wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote: What has the declaration of war, or even Iraq, to do with what we were originally talking about? I'm not following your logic, particularly as Bush was not authorised to use military force until congress passed it. (Google 'Iraq Resolution' or ' Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002')
He might have got the congress vote, but he didn't need it.
That's utter nonsense.*

Can you provide any instance where that has been true?

The president is Commander in Chief to all the armed forces, but can only act, once congress has decided to declare war, and only then can he get to run that war more autonomously. He doesn't even get to decide on peace, which also falls to congress. The constitution was written such that no president would ever have the executive power of a British monarch, who had the power to declare war, without consulting parliament.

However, The War Powers Resolution, of 1973, extended the president's power by allowing him to commit troops anywhere he likes, 'for any reason at all', for no longer than 90 days... but then it contradicts itself, as section 2(c) of the resolution also states that the president’s power to initiate military action is limited to three provisos:
(1) a declaration of war
(2) specific statutory authorization
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces
-which somewhat limits the definition of 'for any reason at all'.

The third proviso should be seen as last but not least as, since 9-11, it has become the predominant citation for putting American 'boots on the ground', in the Middle East and Asia, since then. Oddly enough, Obama may be the only president to have exceeded the 90 day rule.

(* I always thought this forum was for intelligent people to express what they know, or can research, rather than just spew out any old nonsense that comes to mind. If I wanted to dole out unsupported opinions I'd think about quitting this forum and joining the Katie Hopkins Fan Club.)
Vietnam. Korea. You are such a moron. Was war ever declared on Iraq??
And assuming the rest of the world has heard of your dubious 'celebrities' lends itself to the distinct impression that you are not the intellectual giant you proclaim yourself to be. You call me an idiot, then copy something off a website that confirms what I wrote :lol: Googling something is hardly a sign of high intelligence. It's also pretty pathetic to claim a lack of intelligence for the reason why someone might not be an expert on the fine details of American congressional laws and amendments. What a dickhead :roll:
ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Trump has tweeted he's resigning as President to take effect at the end of April

Post by ForCruxSake »

ForCruxSake wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: He might have got the congress vote, but he didn't need it.
That's utter nonsense.
Can you provide any instance where that has been true?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Vietnam. Korea. You are such a moron. Was war ever declared on Iraq??
All were ratified by congress. Look up the Iraq Resolution: it was congress who authorised military action against Iraq, without which the president would not have been able to act, you moron.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:And assuming the rest of the world has heard of your dubious 'celebrities' lends itself to the distinct impression that you are not the intellectual giant you proclaim yourself to be. You call me an idiot, then copy something off a website that confirms what I wrote :lol: Googling something is hardly a sign of high intelligence. It's also pretty pathetic to claim a lack of intelligence for the reason why someone might not be an expert on the fine details of American congressional laws and amendments. What a dickhead :roll:
You seem to be vomiting words. It's actually tiring and pointless wading through your personal rants, which you seem incapable of posting without.

Checking facts online is much more responsible than pulling facts out of your arse. I'm not sure where I am supposed to have agreed with you, I just see word vomit that says I did. BACK IT UP, YOU IDIOT,

I think we're done here unless you actually have a point you can make that you can prove, without you having to resort to a personal attack. I've already wasted enough of a day on your appalling ability to argue.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Trump has tweeted he's resigning as President to take effect at the end of April

Post by FlashDangerpants »

ForCruxSake wrote: All were ratified by congress. Look up the Iraq Resolution: it was congress who authorised military action against Iraq, without which the president would not have been able to act, you moron.
So anyway, on Oct. 25th 1983 (roughly 10 years after the passage of WPR) President Reagan invaded a foreign country without seeking congressional approval.
On Nov. 1st (which you may note comes after October) the House of Representatives voted to apply the WPR to that invasion retrospectively.
Reagan was pissed off by this.

The president was entirely able in that instance to launch a foreign invasion without Congressional approval.

The act you cited yourself was from 1973 and was enacted in response to presidential overreach in previous decades. You cannot possibly be suggesting that actions in wars pre-dating this act were in compliance with it, yet VT's examples clearly do pre-date it which is something that you really shouldn't need to do much research of your own to spot.

VT is a creature of conviction with little need for accuracy, and that's just a thing to get used to because it isn't going to change. If you wish to fight back against that with a wall of truth, you are probably wasting your time. But if so, you might want to stop and at least get the facts correct. Otherwise you are in competition with somebody whose level of conviction far outweighs your own, or any rational person's, and you've given away your only advantage.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Trump has tweeted he's resigning as President to take effect at the end of April

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

ForCruxSake wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: He might have got the congress vote, but he didn't need it.
That's utter nonsense.
Can you provide any instance where that has been true?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Vietnam. Korea. You are such a moron. Was war ever declared on Iraq??
All were ratified by congress. Look up the Iraq Resolution: it was congress who authorised military action against Iraq, without which the president would not have been able to act, you moron.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:And assuming the rest of the world has heard of your dubious 'celebrities' lends itself to the distinct impression that you are not the intellectual giant you proclaim yourself to be. You call me an idiot, then copy something off a website that confirms what I wrote :lol: Googling something is hardly a sign of high intelligence. It's also pretty pathetic to claim a lack of intelligence for the reason why someone might not be an expert on the fine details of American congressional laws and amendments. What a dickhead :roll:
You seem to be vomiting words. It's actually tiring and pointless wading through your personal rants, which you seem incapable of posting without.

Checking facts online is much more responsible than pulling facts out of your arse. I'm not sure where I am supposed to have agreed with you, I just see word vomit that says I did. BACK IT UP, YOU IDIOT,

I think we're done here unless you actually have a point you can make that you can prove, without you having to resort to a personal attack. I've already wasted enough of a day on your appalling ability to argue.
And where are YOU pulling your 'facts' out of? Honestly, the subject of American constitutional law is of less than nought interest to me, but you are such a smug know-it-all and you seem to be looking for a fight. Funny how you 'know' definitively exactly what powers the President does or doesn't have, yet lawyers, congress, and the even Presidents themselves don't know. :lol: :lol: :lol:

'After the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was passed as an effort to limit the President's power. However, the bill actually increased the President's ability to use the military in a variety of situations without asking for Congressional approval.

According to the War Powers Resolution, the President must notify Congress within 48 hours of sending military forces into action. Armed forces can stay engaged for no more than 60 days, with an additional 30 day withdrawal period unless there is a formal Congressional authorization of military force or a declaration of war.
Hmm, nothing there that forbids the President from sending military forces without congress approval. All I said was that Bush didn't need congress' approval to attack Iraq (note:he didn't declare war), and you jump up and down poohing your nappy shouting 'look at me. I'm clever. I'm a great debater.' :lol:
Declaring War
The United States has not formally declared war since World War II. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has sole power "to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal." But Article II, Section 2 provides that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." While it's clear that the Framers intended for Congress alone to declare war, presidents don't always check with Congress before acting. After President Harry Truman bypassed Congress to go to war in Korea, presidents have paid almost no attention to the constitutional requirements.


From NBC’s Ali Weinberg
President Harry Truman’s decision in 1950 to order U.S. air and naval forces into Korea has been cited as a precedent for a president initiating overseas military action without first seeking Congressional authorization.

But Congress didn’t exactly go along.

Some members did, in fact, accuse Truman of usurping the powers of the legislative branch, in very similar ways that President Obama’s decision to authorize air strikes against Libya has been met with Congressional criticism.

Truman’s administration justified the strike by saying the United Nations Security Council had recommended all members of the U.N. to “furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repeal the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area.”

Truman cited the resolution in a statement to the public explaining his decision on June 27, 1950:

In Korea the Government forces, which were armed to prevent border raids and to preserve internal security, were attacked by invading forces from North Korea. The Security Council of the United Nations called upon the invading troops to cease hostilities and to withdraw to the Thirty-eighth Parallel. This they have not done, but on the contrary have pressed the attack. The Security Council called upon all members of the United Nations to render every assistance to the United Nations in the execution of this resolution.

In these circumstances I have ordered United States air and sea forces to give the Korean Government troops cover and support.

While Congress overall seemed to support the merits of the announcement (and, in fact, according to a New York Times article from June 27, 1950, many cheered it in the House of Representatives), some members said it was an example of overreach by the executive branch.

From the same Times article:

The most outspoken objection to the Chief Executive’s course was expressed by Representative Vito Marcantonio, American Labor party, of New York, who charged that Mr. Truman had usurped the powers of Congress by declaring war against North Korea.

He said the President’s action was “a disastrous course” – one that might bring “disastrous consequences on the people of the United States unless checked by the people themselves.”

“For all purposes, he declared, “we are at war with the Northern Government of Korea and we might as well face it.”

In fact, other objections pertained to the very role of the United Nations Security Council (which had been formed just five years before in 1945) in declaring military actions, and whether it alone should serve as sufficient authorization for the U.S. to become involved in fighting.

Senator Arthur V. Watkins, Republican of Utah, asked Mr. Lucas [who read the statement in the Senate] whether the President should not have consulted with Congress before ordering the Navy and the Air Force to support the South Koreans.

“It is a serious emergency, and I am taking that into consideration,” he told Mr. Lucas. “But does the Senator consider the action taken justified by the fact that we have ratified the United Nations pact and have become a member of it; and if a request is made by the United Nations through the Security Council, to send support, whether the President would be justified by that alone, in sending support which might result in a war?”
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Trump has tweeted he's resigning as President to take effect at the end of April

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

FlashDangerpants wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote: All were ratified by congress. Look up the Iraq Resolution: it was congress who authorised military action against Iraq, without which the president would not have been able to act, you moron.
So anyway, on Oct. 25th 1983 (roughly 10 years after the passage of WPR) President Reagan invaded a foreign country without seeking congressional approval.
On Nov. 1st (which you may note comes after October) the House of Representatives voted to apply the WPR to that invasion retrospectively.
Reagan was pissed off by this.

The president was entirely able in that instance to launch a foreign invasion without Congressional approval.

The act you cited yourself was from 1973 and was enacted in response to presidential overreach in previous decades. You cannot possibly be suggesting that actions in wars pre-dating this act were in compliance with it, yet VT's examples clearly do pre-date it which is something that you really shouldn't need to do much research of your own to spot.

VT is a creature of conviction with little need for accuracy, and that's just a thing to get used to because it isn't going to change. If you wish to fight back against that with a wall of truth, you are probably wasting your time. But if so, you might want to stop and at least get the facts correct. Otherwise you are in competition with somebody whose level of conviction far outweighs your own, or any rational person's, and you've given away your only advantage.
Not liking what someone says or how they say it doesn't alter the accuracy of what they say. I've never claimed to be an expert on American constitutional law and Presidential powers, but I still manage to be more accurate than that know-all. I don't recall ever interacting with you, and I certainly don't recall you ever disproving my accuracy on anything.
ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Trump has tweeted he's resigning as President to take effect at the end of April

Post by ForCruxSake »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote: I think we're done here unless you actually have a point you can make that you can prove, without you having to resort to a personal attack.
And where are YOU pulling your 'facts' out of? Honestly, the subject of American constitutional law is of less than nought interest to me, but you are such a smug know-it-all and you seem to be looking for a fight. Funny how you 'know' definitively exactly what powers the President does or doesn't have, yet lawyers, congress, and the even Presidents themselves don't know. :lol: :lol: :lol: ....
And guess what? We're done.

Whatever came after your vitriol I didn't even bother to read. If you cannot make one point without resorting to personal attack, you don't deserve to be heard.
Last edited by ForCruxSake on Mon Apr 03, 2017 1:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Trump has tweeted he's resigning as President to take effect at the end of April

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

ForCruxSake wrote:
And guess what? We're done.

Whatever came after your vitriol I didn't even bother to read. If you cannot make one point without resorting to personal attack, you don't deserve to be heard..
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Trump has tweeted he's resigning as President to take effect at the end of April

Post by ForCruxSake »

FlashDangerpants wrote:I don't think the British king had sufficient powers to declare war at the time of the revolutionary war either. That hadn't been the prerogative of the monarch or his proxy since the Restoration. Ultimately, Parliament held the purse strings then just as Congress does in the US now, which is how Presidents and Prime Ministers are brought to heel.
The British monarch to this day retains the right to declare war. Most monarchic powers are ceremonial, in the modern age, and the Queen simply would not exercise some of the rights set aside for her. If she tried to, parliament would shoot it down in a heartbeat. It's decorative but technically the monarch still retains the right, and always has. Nothing has been legislated to change it. That the U.S. Constitution did legislate to restrict presidential powers was a reflection of this. I was taught this at school.
ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Trump has tweeted he's resigning as President to take effect at the end of April

Post by ForCruxSake »

FlashDangerpants wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote: All were ratified by congress. Look up the Iraq Resolution: it was congress who authorised military action against Iraq, without which the president would not have been able to act, you moron.
So anyway, on Oct. 25th 1983 (roughly 10 years after the passage of WPR) President Reagan invaded a foreign country without seeking congressional approval.
On Nov. 1st (which you may note comes after October) the House of Representatives voted to apply the WPR to that invasion retrospectively.
Reagan was pissed off by this.

The president was entirely able in that instance to launch a foreign invasion without Congressional approval.
Again, it still had to be actioned by congress, even if it was retrospective. Was he pissed off because it undermined his power play? Why be pissed off if they are agreeing with his actions even if it is in retrospect? Democrats called for his impeachment but yes, he got away with it.

My point was more centred on the accountability of presidents that overreached the War Powers Res. When Obama overreached over Libya, again there was legitimate grounds for impeachment and they were discussed. VT originally suggested that presidents can do what they want. They can't. They will be held accountable. They may get away with it, but their actions are not legitimate, and under the right circumstances they could impeached for overreaching their powers.
FlashDangerpants wrote: The act you cited yourself was from 1973 and was enacted in response to presidential overreach in previous decades. You cannot possibly be suggesting that actions in wars pre-dating this act were in compliance with it, yet VT's examples clearly do pre-date it which is something that you really shouldn't need to do much research of your own to spot.
I wasn't suggesting that at all. VT brought up Iraq, my post about the WPR was in response to that.
FlashDangerpants wrote: VT a creature of conviction with little need for accuracy, and that's just a thing to get used to because it isn't going to change. If you wish to fight back against that with a wall of truth, you are probably wasting your time. But if so, you might want to stop and at least get the facts correct. Otherwise you are in competition with somebody whose level of conviction far outweighs your own, or any rational person's, and you've given away your only advantage.
You're right. I got caught up in personal attack and it was foolish, but I've been mired in a series of cross posts with VT, that I allowed to take up so much of my day. In my rush to cover all posts I didn't check all the facts I should have. I simply didn't have time. I was more concerned with what was said about Iraq.

VT is a lazy debater whose conviction is undermined by her inability to present an argument well, that's if she bothers to present an argument at all. She makes sweeping statements which she fails to support and then turns to personal attack when challenged to back up her statements. You're fighting on two fronts with her. It's hard to keep all balls in the air particularly when she decides to troll you on various threads to which you are posting, (possibly with the specific aim of taking pot shots??? Who knows? Who cares???)

I think she's best ignored for my part. I haven't got the time to hash out stuff with her by looking up the arguments she is meant to be presenting and I'd rather dialogue with people who have the charm, grace and intelligence by which I can extend my learning. All I seemed to have learned from VT is how to get frustrated and annoyed, to my own detriment, and how NOT to communicate. Good lesson to learn.

Thanks for the thoughtful advice and for adding to my knowledge of how illicit U.S. Presidents can be!
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Trump has tweeted he's resigning as President to take effect at the end of April

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

ForCruxSake wrote:
FlashDangerpants wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote: All were ratified by congress. Look up the Iraq Resolution: it was congress who authorised military action against Iraq, without which the president would not have been able to act, you moron.
So anyway, on Oct. 25th 1983 (roughly 10 years after the passage of WPR) President Reagan invaded a foreign country without seeking congressional approval.
On Nov. 1st (which you may note comes after October) the House of Representatives voted to apply the WPR to that invasion retrospectively.
Reagan was pissed off by this.

The president was entirely able in that instance to launch a foreign invasion without Congressional approval.
Again, it still had to be actioned by congress, even if it was retrospective. Was he pissed off because it undermined his power play? Why be pissed off if they are agreeing with his actions even if it is in retrospect? Democrats called for his impeachment but yes, he got away with it.

My point was more centred on the accountability of presidents that overreached the War Powers Res. When Obama overreached over Libya, again there was legitimate grounds for impeachment and they were discussed. VT originally suggested that presidents can do what they want. They can't. They will be held accountable. They may get away with it, but their actions are not legitimate, and under the right circumstances they could impeached for overreaching their powers.
FlashDangerpants wrote: The act you cited yourself was from 1973 and was enacted in response to presidential overreach in previous decades. You cannot possibly be suggesting that actions in wars pre-dating this act were in compliance with it, yet VT's examples clearly do pre-date it which is something that you really shouldn't need to do much research of your own to spot.
I wasn't suggesting that at all. VT brought up Iraq, my post about the WPR was in response to that.
FlashDangerpants wrote: VT a creature of conviction with little need for accuracy, and that's just a thing to get used to because it isn't going to change. If you wish to fight back against that with a wall of truth, you are probably wasting your time. But if so, you might want to stop and at least get the facts correct. Otherwise you are in competition with somebody whose level of conviction far outweighs your own, or any rational person's, and you've given away your only advantage.
You're right. I got caught up in personal attack and it was foolish, but I've been mired in a series of cross posts with VT, that I allowed to take up so much of my day. In my rush to cover all posts I didn't check all the facts I should have. I simply didn't have time. I was more concerned with what was said about Iraq.

VT is a lazy debater whose conviction is undermined by her inability to present an argument well, that's if she bothers to present an argument at all. She makes sweeping statements which she fails to support and then turns to personal attack when challenged to back up her statements. You're fighting on two fronts with her. It's hard to keep all balls in the air particularly when she decides to troll you on various threads to which you are posting, (possibly with the specific aim of taking pot shots??? Who knows? Who cares???)

I think she's best ignored for my part. I haven't got the time to hash out stuff with her by looking up the arguments she is meant to be presenting and I'd rather dialogue with people who have the charm, grace and intelligence by which I can extend my learning. All I seemed to have learned from VT is how to get frustrated and annoyed, to my own detriment, and how NOT to communicate. Good lesson to learn.

Thanks for the thoughtful advice and for adding to my knowledge of how illicit U.S. Presidents can be!
:)
ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Trump has tweeted he's resigning as President to take effect at the end of April

Post by ForCruxSake »

I'm quite happy to admit when I'm wrong. I'd have admitted it to you except that you didn't have the control to write one 'clean' post, a diatribe without histrionic attack.

I have no problem with being found to be wrong. It's part and parcel or thinking, arguing, living. It's more important that I understand why I'm wrong. I didn't have to be coerced into admitting I'd made a mistake. There's something satisfying about humbling yourself to someone who talks to you in a way that gets you to look at what you've done (thank you, flashdangerpants), rather than be bent into submission by someone who screams in your face and turns every discussion into an opportunity for oneupmanship.

You express yourself, and argue, like an out of control teenager. It's either one liners or word vomit from you, never measured or controlled thought and dialogue. Your need to gloat over small victories by highlighting and repeating what has already been said (without your coercion) just confirms that. When somebody resorts to bobevenson's tactic of highlighting in giant letters, it's because they lack the equivalent sized balls to communicate properly. Your need to do that says more about you than me.

I haven't been here too long and am still working who really is here to discuss stuff rather than troll or display oneupmanship. I don't know you very well, although I know you better now and I've seen some good thought from you, clouded in rants, but if the following holds any truth:

"VT is a creature of conviction with little need for accuracy, and that's just a thing to get used to because it isn't going to change. If you wish to fight back against that with a wall of truth, you are probably wasting your time."

-you're probably not worth engaging with again.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Trump has tweeted he's resigning as President to take effect at the end of April

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

ForCruxSake wrote:
And guess what? We're done.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Trump has tweeted he's resigning as President to take effect at the end of April

Post by FlashDangerpants »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Not liking what someone says or how they say it doesn't alter the accuracy of what they say. I've never claimed to be an expert on American constitutional law and Presidential powers, but I still manage to be more accurate than that know-all. I don't recall ever interacting with you, and I certainly don't recall you ever disproving my accuracy on anything.
I stepped into that little flame war because I am heedless of Danger! I was really just pointing out that you have your style and it probably can take people by surprise. And that the truth of the matter at hand seemed to be about half way between the pair of you. I'm fairly certain you've called me PC and neoliberal and stuff, but I'm not going to put up a big fight for accusations which are largely true. Although you did accidentally call me an American once, which hurt me very deeply in the butt :(
Post Reply