@Double_R
Ok, keep failing at basic communication then. It's not even my fight.
Ok, keep failing at basic communication then. It's not even my fight.
lol
”Hey, what happens if the president cannot continue”
”It’s in the constitution, read it”
”Well clearly you don’t understand how this works, you’re terrible at communication!”
Ok bro.
That is not what I asked you. You either lie or can't participate in basic communication. Sad in either case.
No, the question you asked me was “who you intend to use to replace your elected president?”. I didn’t answer this question as it was asked because it’s incredibly stupid, for it as written is premised on the idea that I get to decide who replaces Trump. So I presumed that you are smarter than that and gave you the benefit of the doubt by steelmanning your question into “what do you think will happen if Trump needs to be replaced”, and continued from there.
If I was giving you too much credit let me know.
There is a process to remove the president from office.
The 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
clarifies presidential succession and disability. It establishes that the Vice President becomes President if the President dies, resigns, or is removed from office. It also provides procedures for filling a vacancy in the Vice President's office and for the temporary transfer of presidential power to the Vice President in cases of presidential disability.
for it as written is premised on the idea that I get to decide who replaces Trump
That was a fundamentally flawed conclusion you drew, and it's evidence of why you struggle to carry on a basic conversation. Who you want never amounts to the bestowing of magical powers under any fictitious premise pulled out of the ether. It's simply a matter of your preference, of which you apparently have none. Or quite possibly, a preference for anarchy, as that is a fast-growing movement parallel with MAGA in your country. Yes, this is probably the obvious case, absent of a normal conversation between normal people.
If I was giving you too much credit let me know.
No, that was me giving you too much credit, and my faulty assumption that you had the ability to carry on a basic conversation. I assumed you could track a basic question about preference without inventing magical powers nobody claimed. Clearly a faulty assumption on my part.
That was a fundamentally flawed conclusion you drew, and it's evidence of why you struggle to carry on a basic conversation.
The irony
Who you want never amounts to the bestowing of magical powers under any fictitious premise pulled out of the ether. It's simply a matter of your preference
You didn’t ask who I wanted, you asked who I “intended to use”. In English, that’s a question about real world actions, not hypothetical desires.
Yeah, anarchy it is. Much like your conversations here.
Fr. The dude will take things into the realm of unfalsifiable nonsense and then accuse you of doing it when your rebuttal points that out. He will try to be a mind reader, and his “case” to prove it is equally applicable to his side. I found it funny when he griped about the rightists who want less government control, then turned around and said they wanted an authoritarian dictatorship. When his side’s authoritarianism is mentioned, it’s justifiable… and then he’ll have the audacity to say you give the right passes you won’t give the left. I think I’ll call him Double_Standard.
I still don’t know what to type!
Two sides to every argument.
Though probably more than two available.
Both sides self righteous, or not as the case maybe.
Depends upon preferences I suppose.
Time to get a mug of tea.
More like Double_Reality
He will try to be a mind reader, and his “case” to prove it is equally applicable to his side.
In the Trump era the right loves to hide behind the “we’re not mind readers” defense even though determining the intent of others is one of the most basic skills we acquire in life and is used all throughout law, business and politics.
It’s not a serious rebuttal, it’s an excuse to hide behind the egregious double standards the right applies to Trump vs anyone else.
When his side’s authoritarianism is mentioned, it’s justifiable… and then he’ll have the audacity to say you give the right passes you won’t give the left.
The left isn’t authoritarian, that’s the difference. So I don’t have to justify it, only educate you on what authoritarianism is and how we identify it. There is no comparison there between this administration and anything we see on the mainstream left.
....Determining the intent in others.....
And this is why you deserve the government you have. An intent is the same as a promise. If you promote promises over results, then you reward failure. When you value the performance artistry of intentions and when you praise theatrical virtue signalling over actual improvements, you reward incompetence and deception.
You deserve exactly what you asked for.
The left isn’t authoritarian
Oh my!
I had no idea the American left was fighting to abolish government agencies, lower taxes across the board, eliminate bureaucratic bloat, impose strict oversight on government power, dismantle extortive welfare structures, and champion widespread deregulation.
Thanks for clearing that up. The American left promotes shrinking authority and not growing it.
only educate you on what authoritarianism is and how we identify it
Oh, I am sure it will be something along the lines of "well, if we vote for someone to have authority over us, then it isn't real authoritarianism"
It's just pretend authority, right?
Or worse, "authority that I agree with isn't "real authoritarianism.""
Backflip and twist those cranial nerves!
The left isn’t authoritarian, that’s the difference.
No shot you're arguing this LOL
I still don’t know what to type!
At least one of us is making an argument.
lol!
Trump will change all that in his third term.