Rep. Jamaal Bowman pulls fire alarm ahead of vote to pass short-term funding bill

[Dutch Uncle]

You posted the entire post, then took portions of it out of context.

Assumption of victory fallacy. Attempted proof by void.

Inversion fallacy. This is what YOU are doing.

Mantra 60 Excessive whining. 10 yard penalty

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[Damocles]

You posted the entire post, then took portions of it out of context.

Assumption of victory fallacy. Attempted proof by void.

Inversion fallacy. This is what YOU are doing.

A nonsense statement. Try English. It works better.

Fallacies don't work. They are errors in logic.

Assumption of victory fallacy. Attempted proof by void. Repetition fallacy. Association fallacy. Pivot fallacy.

You cannot just claim victory.
You cannot attempt a proof by just claiming victory.
You are repeating yourself (chanting).
You are attempting to associate Trump with Biden, and even attempting to blame Trump because of Biden.
You are trying to change the subject (pivot).
Some of your sentences are no longer making sense.

Look, you've made the very valid point that no matter how you vote, the 'D's win, because the kind of State you live in. I happen to agree with this. That is sufficient. You do not need to try to tell me the meaning of Trump's post or try to change it.

Let's leave it here.

None is taken out of context, the context is provided. That's the problem here, you pretend you have some magical knowledge and that repeating a falsehood makes it real. You don't, and it doesn't.

As for "claiming victory"... Who is claiming victory? I haven't spiked a football, I don't like that the frontrunner of a party I want to vote for is someone that I cannot support.

In this thread, here and now, I am pointing out that when the entire context of a thing is provided that thing cannot be taken out of context. I have "claimed" nothing at all, other than the reality that the facts are on my side and that you don't get to make your own facts up. Also that repeating something doesn't make it real even if you really really really want it to.

Sure, we'll "leave it here" if you want. I'm willing, but will you?

 

[IBDaMann]

Nonsense, in order to believe that it is something he's saying "they" are doing you have to take it out of the context I have supplied.

Following this whole trail of who wrote what in rebuttal to what was written by whom has gotten confusing.

Damocles, what issue are you taking with what Trump tweeted? One could easily get the impression from what you wrote that you are in favor of fraudulent non-elections and that We the People are just supposed to sit here and take it. The States own the Constitution and the Federal government gets its power from We the People, not the other way around. If the rules of the Constitution are being abused to the detriment of We the People, then We the People can discard the Constitution and make a new one. Erasure of our representative republic by destroying free and fair elections is a perfectly legitimate basis for doing so, however Trump merely stated the obvious that the abuse of a few of the rules would clearly have to be addressed. All perfectly legitimate. I don't see what your initial complaint is or your reason for posting Trump's tweet in the first place.

Could you shed a little light on the matter?

 

[IBDaMann]

Amending and changing the Constitution is constitutional.

... only when done according to the Constitution, i.e. the States make the changes, not any part of the Federal government, because that would be tyranny.

Imagine if the Federal government could simply change the Constitution as it sees fit. How long would it be before the Constitution strongly resembled the Communist Manifesto and State lines were gerrymandered to destroy any remaining power the States might have? Can you say "faster than Usain Bolt running away from a vision of Hillary Clinton"?

 

[Damocles]

Following this whole trail of who wrote what in rebuttal to what was written by whom has gotten confusing.

Damocles, what issue are you taking with what Trump tweeted? One could easily get the impression from what you wrote that you are in favor of fraudulent non-elections and that We the People are just supposed to sit here and take it. The States own the Constitution and the Federal government gets its power from We the People, not the other way around. If the rules of the Constitution are being abused to the detriment of We the People, then We the People can discard the Constitution and make a new one. Erasure of our representative republic by destroying free and fair elections is a perfectly legitimate basis for doing so, however Trump merely stated the obvious that the abuse of a few of the rules would clearly have to be addressed. All perfectly legitimate. I don't see what your initial complaint is or your reason for posting Trump's tweet in the first place.

Could you shed a little light on the matter?

I am for the Constitution, even in the face of bad actions of another. The Constitution has served us for over 200 years, and can for centuries more, if we elect folks willing to faithfully act as their oath requires, to defend and support the constitution.

Not voting for Trump doesn't support Democrats, that's your own strawman argument you can tilt that windmill all you want. It's always easy to win an argument if you pretend that someone said something they never said and then argue that. Everyone is stupid in your imagination and you win every debate when that is the case.

The part where he says that terminating the rules found in the constitution is where I draw the line. The Constitution is what makes us unique, it outlines what government cannot do, and rights and government limits cannot be suspended to support one man. No one man is more important than the Constitution.

 

[Nomad]

... only when done according to the Constitution, i.e. the States make the changes, not any part of the Federal government, because that would be tyranny.

Imagine if the Federal government could simply change the Constitution as it sees fit. How long would it be before the Constitution strongly resembled the Communist Manifesto and State lines were gerrymandered to destroy any remaining power the States might have? Can you say "faster than Usain Bolt running away from a vision of Hillary Clinton"?

No kidding.

 

[Into the Night]

None is taken out of context, the context is provided.

And you took a portion out of context.

That's the problem here, you pretend you have some magical knowledge and that repeating a falsehood makes it real. You don't, and it doesn't.

False dichotomy fallacy. Buzzword fallacies (magical knowledge, falsehood, real). Assumption of victory fallacy.

As for "claiming victory"... Who is claiming victory?

You.

I haven't spiked a football, I don't like that the frontrunner of a party I want to vote for is someone that I cannot support.

Which you have already stated, but making up stuff Trump supposedly said is not going to work.

In this thread, here and now, I am pointing out that when the entire context of a thing is provided that thing cannot be taken out of context.

It sure as hell can, and you are doing it.

I have "claimed" nothing at all, other than the reality that the facts are on my side and that you don't get to make your own facts up.

Buzzword fallacies (reality, facts).

Also that repeating something doesn't make it real even if you really really really want it to.

Assumption of victory fallacy.

Sure, we'll "leave it here" if you want. I'm willing, but will you?

You obviously don't want to leave it here. You are NOT willing to leave it here.

 

[IBDaMann]

No kidding.

I'm always happy to teach you the obvious.

 

[Into the Night]

I am for the Constitution, even in the face of bad actions of another. The Constitution has served us for over 200 years, and can for centuries more, if we elect folks willing to faithfully act as their oath requires, to defend and support the constitution.

Fine.

Not voting for Trump doesn't support Democrats,

If Trump is nominated, not voting for Trump means the vote goes to Democrats.

that's your own strawman argument you can tilt that windmill all you want.

It is not a strawman. Fallacy fallacy.

It's always easy to win an argument if you pretend that someone said something they never said and then argue that.

WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING, and you are NOT winning.

Everyone is stupid in your imagination and you win every debate when that is the case.

So now you are calling everyone else stupid because they don't agree with you??????!? Insult fallacy.

The part where he says that terminating the rules found in the constitution is where I draw the line.

Trump NEVER said he was terminating any part of the Constitution.

The Constitution is what makes us unique, it outlines what government cannot do, and rights and government limits cannot be suspended to support one man.

Trump NEVER said he was suspending any part of the Constitution.

No one man is more important than the Constitution.

Tell that to Biden and the DEMOCRATS who ARE discarding the Constitution.

Trump wants to RESTORE the Constitution, not suspend or terminate it!!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Fine.

If Trump is nominated, not voting for Trump means the vote goes to Democrats.

It is not a strawman. Fallacy fallacy.

WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING, and you are NOT winning.

So now you are calling everyone else stupid because they don't agree with you??????!? Insult fallacy.

Trump NEVER said he was terminating any part of the Constitution.

Trump NEVER said he was suspending any part of the Constitution.

Tell that to Biden and the DEMOCRATS who ARE discarding the Constitution.

Trump wants to RESTORE the Constitution, not suspend or terminate it!!

Mantra 57 Repetitive and demented behavior

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I'm always happy to teach you the obvious.

Mantra 46 Horse Assery

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

And you took a portion out of context.

False dichotomy fallacy. Buzzword fallacies (magical knowledge, falsehood, real). Assumption of victory fallacy.

You.

Which you have already stated, but making up stuff Trump supposedly said is not going to work.

It sure as hell can, and you are doing it.

Buzzword fallacies (reality, facts).

Assumption of victory fallacy.

You obviously don't want to leave it here. You are NOT willing to leave it here.

Mantra 58 Dumbfuckery

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[IBDaMann]

I am for the Constitution, even in the face of bad actions of another.

I'm sorry, but no. You are quite clearly for fraudulent non-elections if they are stolen by abusing the rules and intent of the Constitution. Would you mind shedding some light on why you hold this position?

The Constitution has served us for over 200 years,

So when the Constitution fails, you don't want it addressed because ... it has existed for a long while?

and can for centuries more,...

Nope. Stolen elections do not serve us. This point is not negotiable. If you don't have free and fair elections, you don't have a Constitution (in effect).

I would have to say that the difference between your position and mine is that I want a Constitution for a representative republic that works and that is in effect, and you want whatever Constitution is old and that used to work before it failed.

if we elect folks willing to faithfully act as their oath requires, to defend and support the constitution.

... then we get a new generation of tyrants willing to faithfully abuse the rules as their predecessors did.

Not voting for Trump doesn't support Democrats,

Yes, it most certainly does. Democrats are scared shitless of Trump to the point that they care about nothing beyond doing whatever will take him out of the picture, legal or otherwise. Democrats know that they have nobody who can beat Trump in a free and fair election, so they enlist every person they can who is like you, i.e. who opposes free and fair elections, to help legitimize the future stealing of elections so that they can remain in power.

Yes, everything about your posting on this topic absolutely supports the Democrats.

that's your own strawman argument

It can't be; I had never made that argument.

It's always easy to win an argument if you pretend that someone said something they never said

... like saying that I had argued that not voting for Trump supports Democrats? It's an entirely true assertion, but I never made that argument.

I merely asked you to shed light on your own post. I'm responding to exactly what you wrote, and I quote your words here in this thread.

The part where he says that terminating the rules found in the constitution is where I draw the line.

Thank you. That is the clarification I sought.

As such, yes, I totally disagree with you. The moment any part of the Constitution causes the republic for which it stands to fail, We the People need to correct it through our States. We the People have absolutely no obligation to remain "hands-off" just because of the age of the document, nor are we required to wait for a tyrannical government to become untyrannical.

Your position looks identical to one of supporting the election-stealing by the oligarchy running a tyrannical government.

The Constitution is what makes us unique,

Nope. Other countries have constitutions. Ours was certainly better, but the greatness embodied within is now being abused, and that abuse needs to be addressed. Either the Constitution needs to be amended or it needs to be scrapped and a new Constitution created, i.e. one that can't be abused.

No one man is more important than the Constitution.

... except for members of the Biden family, donors to the DNC, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, deep state members, certain Intelligence Community directors and others in the oligarchy.

 

[Nomad]

I'm always happy to teach you the obvious.

If you had the command of the obvious you think you do, you would've understood that I never suggested Constitutional procedures should be ignored or not be followed when amending or changing it.

I have no idea what gave you the idea that I did.

 

[IBDaMann]

If you had the command of the obvious you think you do ...

If you could actually read minds like you obviously believe you can, your sentence would not have been summarily ignored before reaching the half-way point.

... I never suggested Constitutional procedures should be ignored or not be followed when amending or changing it.

Correct. If you could read English for comprehension, you'd understand that my post doesn't say that you did. I merely added the missing text that you omitted from your post.

You're welcome.

 

[Nomad]

If you could actually read minds like you obviously believe you can, your sentence would not have been summarily ignored before reaching the half-way point.

Yet you answered the entire post in two separate quote boxes.

Sounds like someone is lying.

Correct. If you could read English for comprehension, you'd understand that my post doesn't say that you did. I merely added the missing text that you omitted from your post.

You're welcome.

By explaining something that is so obvious it didn't need explaining, your post IMPLIES that I was saying Constitutional procedures need not be followed.

Now you admit that you didn't "teach me" anything.

You're welcome.

 

[LurchAddams]

So anyway, back to Bowman allegedly pulling the fire alarm.

He didn't do it.

End of discussion.

You're welcome.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So anyway, back to Bowman allegedly pulling the fire alarm.

He didn't do it.

End of discussion.

You're welcome.

It appears he did. What's not clear is why he did. I doubt the MAGAt theory that he was being an insurrectionist and seeking to disrupt an official proceeding....even though it's funny that they confess that's exactly what the Insurrectionists did on 1/6. LOL

 

[Earl]

LurchAddams


"So anyway, back to Bowman allegedly pulling the fire alarm.

He didn't do it..."




How do you respond to a poster who denies what Rep. Bowman has already admitted to?

He said he pulled the fire alarm thinking it was opening the door.

Good grief!

He admitted what he did but his motivation was to delay the vote.

 

[ExpressLane]

So anyway, back to Bowman allegedly pulling the fire alarm.

He didn't do it.

End of discussion.

You're welcome.

He admitted he did it.