Comments by "ncwordman" (@ncwordman) on "Trump Justice Dept Wants to Suspend Constitution During Emergency" video.
-
3
-
@terminsane "I thought it was clear but maybe i should make it clearer: i absolutely disagree with the DOJ on suspending the constitution. I don't think its legal to suspend the constitution. And any government that does, would automatically become illegitimate.
For the same reasons that any leftwing politician looking to eradicate the 1st or 2nd amendments, or implement socialism, is also illegitimate."
You have a gift for writing, so I hope you'll accept some pointers. That paragraph is all you needed, to answer the original poster, and anyone else, including me.
You could even delete the first sentence, of what's quoted, as it's condescending. Maybe I was condescending, but you don't need to be. If I was, and I mostly likely was, two wrongs don't make a right.
You could also delete the last sentence. No one is out to take away the 2nd amendment. What does that have to do with anything? It distracts from the topic, and splinters the conversation. As for the 1st amendment, I'm surprised. First, again, what does that have to do with the topic? Second, the freedom of the press is part of that 1st amendment. And since Trump is always talking about "fake news" and "nasty" reporters, I wonder why you even brought it up.
Stick to the point. Answer the question. That way you won't undermine your position, or your argument. Oh, and check for spelling and grammar mistakes. You discredit your writing when you don't see that "dont" needs an apostrophe. If you don't appear to be intelligent, the people, who are already against you (since you're a Trump supporter), will just dismiss you, since you come across as uneducated.
2
-
@terminsane See what I mean by "splinter" the conversation? The topic is Trump, the DOJ, and suspension of Habeas Corpus. Now, suddenly, we're into how the Democrats are out to take your guns; we're talking about borders; we're talking about Bush, Obama, torture, etc. See, this is a problem. We could go round and round forever. But I have a few more minutes to kill, and Trump supporters fascinate me. So...fine.
You've read Orwell, then? As long as we're splintering the conversation, maybe you could quote Orwell, and point out how what I wrote was not only "wordplay," but Orwellian.
While you're at it, I'd like to see some quotes and links about, as you put it: "We have seen the numeruous quotes and video clips, and watched the dnc debates."
This might also be a good time to point out, as long as we're splintering, that you misspelled "numerous." The red squiggly line appears under the word, as you're writing, to let you know you misspelled something. It isn't hard. You don't have to memorize the dictionary.
Here's the deal: If you claim something, back it up with links, and summarize those links with a quote, which you got from the link, so I can easily search the article. Otherwise, you're really just "gaslighting," yourself, aren't you?
2
-
@terminsane Onto Socialism now? Let me explain something. I can't speak to any one of your points, and ignore all the rest. And if I try to speak to all your points, I would need a length that derives from multiplying all said points.
That's one reason the Gish Gallop is a fallacy. But I'll try, one last time: I'm not "making decisions [on] other peoples behalf, against their consent."
Not sure what your point is, because you don't say. Should we have no government? or small government? or states-only government? Or do you just mean we shouldn't have socialism? Do you mean Democratic, National, or good-old-fashioned USSR Socialism? They're all different, you know.
And is Socialism the only kind of government you're against? Why? And have you noticed that all the other Fox News viewers, and Trump supporters say the same thing (also without explanation)?
See, I'm on the 5th paragraph, just trying to figure out what you're talking about.
Are you saying that the government shouldn't decide things which pertain to liberty? Should they not get involved in abortion? Should they not bash the press? Should they not help in disasters? What happens when a convict goes across state lines? etc.
Now, how long would you have to make a reply to answer all those questions. As a writer, you have left me without a means to move forward. And you're still assuming that I want the kind of socialism you're imagining, and not a unique 21st century, American Socialism, in which we make sure everyone is taken care of.
No one goes broke from surgery; no one is homeless; no one's religious, sexual, political ideas are better or worse than anyone else's. That's a glimpse into what I think of, when I think of Socialism.
Get Venezuela out of your head; America is not Venezuela. Get the USSR out of your head; this is the 21st century. Now I've begun to Gish Gallop, just to try and keep up.
2
-
In the case of the poster, Terminal Sanity, we do have a Trump supporter. I see walls of text coming from him. You folks ever heard of Gish Gallup? David has talked about it. That and Terminal's whataboutism show that another poster, Monkeys on Wheels, was right when he wrote, "Why would they? They would support Donald on this."
I can't even begin to break down, and analyze what Terminal Sanity wrote. There's way too much, and most of it seems to be doing what it accuses others, such as this post of his: "Because youve isolated yourselves from opposing view points. You dont listen to anything Trump supporters say. You only listen to yourselves as you hyperbolically strawman and dehumanize Trump supporters."
It's hard to look through everything he wrote, being largely about Hillary or Bernie, or whatever. But he doesn't seem to talk about what the DOJ wants to do. Maybe he does? Since I needed three paragraphs to summarize what he wrote, imagine how much I'd need to break down everything he said. Hence, Gish Gallup.
1