Calling it "Politically Motivated"

[Markk]

So I wasn't lying....why would anyone post such a thing if they did not support the thought? You supported in print here twice, for pulling the plug.

Markk, seriously. For someone who always accuses others of grasping for straws, this statement of yours is a better example of that than most any I’ve seen as of late.

People post comments from others all of the time as simple examples or in order to compare or contrast the comment to their own opinion. If the reference above is unedited (you haven’t linked to a source post, and you should), it does not follow that the person posting it must agree with the comment, and in exactly the way that you interpret it.

Lol...so your saying that Jersey Girl was lambasting that person? Sure!

Lol...The contrast is, as the other example I stumbled upon is that she hates Trump, which can be easily proven, and she has no issues implying she supports pulling the plug on him.

And you are certainly grasping for straw here, that Jersey Girl was somehow just randomly pointing out that someone posted a comment about pulling the plug on the President.

Good luck with this one.

This is what she wrote,

Re: Trump is not a fascist
Post by Jersey Girl » Thu Apr 17, 2025 3:58 am

Kishkumen wrote: ↑Wed Apr 16, 2025 7:21 pm
Jersey Girl wrote: ↑Wed Apr 16, 2025 6:04 pm
We're PAYING El Salvador to hold Mr. Garcia?
Yes! We are!
So we taxpayers funded the kidnapping of a man who was found to have no gang related ties and permitted to remain in the U.S. per court ruling, shove him off to a terrorist prison population in El freaking Salvador, by a government who alternately claimed that it's actions were an "administrative error" but they couldn't get him back and now flip flopped saying that he was part of MS13 and they're now defying and soon to be charged with contempt of court orders and we're the tax paying suckers who are paying for this miscarriage of justice.

Or whatever I said there in likely the longest run on sentence in the history of the board. Okay I got it.

In a possibly unrelated thought... I saw a comment on youtube that said to the effect...While I don't wish death on any person let's just say that I wouldn't mind unplugging DJT's life support machine to charge my phone.

What do you think she meant by that statement?

[canpakes]

What do you think she meant by that statement?

What do you see written?

[Some Schmo]

Markk thinks "the haters" are lying.

I'd love to know one lie I've told about ****face.

I've been wondering for a while now, do ****face voters not know what he's about, or is it just that they think all the terrible things he does are lies?

For Markk, I guess it's all lies, despite the reams of evidence. Pretty remarkable how daft some people are.

[Kishkumen]

LOl...again ad homs is all you have. If you need an excuse why you can't ever keep up with a conversation, in an objective way....fine. You think I hate you or dis like you I guess, I don't have time for that in my life. I try to have conversations with you and it just ends up with you getting upset and calling me names.

It is just the way it is I suppose.

honorentheos has provided you plenty of quality information full of facts. What has he changed your mind about? Dude, you support a president who is routinely violating the Constitution he swore to uphold. If you actually cared about facts, you would not support Trump. What is to be done with you? What will convince you that you are on the wrong track if you can't be dissuaded from supporting Trump, the most corrupt US president of the modern era? One who is peddling influence, selling pardons, accepting giant gifts from foreign governments? It is all out in the open, and yet you remain blind to it. I don't think that pointing out your bad judgment and lack of reasoning skills is ad hominem. These are just facts.

OK, if we are approaching this question from a position in which the argument is over whether upholding the Constitution is important or not, or whether presidents should be allowed to sell their influence to the super wealthy, then maybe you have a point. Unfortunately, I am NOT approaching it from that position. In my view, the common ground should be the president keeps his oath to uphold the Constitution and he does not sell his influence to the super wealthy. If that is not where you are, then maybe we just don't have the basic framework for a discussion.

So which is it? Pro-Constitution or not? Anti-influence peddling or not? If you choose not for either or both, then there is no conversation to be had.