Washington post 12,000 trump lies

a reply to: underpass61

Be careful if you say his name three times into a monitor he appears . 😁

Anyway ignoring context and emphasizing certain words.

Is a large part of my position .

a reply to: Fallingdown

Your first example:

WaPo claims: Governors do not have the power to "get rid of" Constitutional rights.

Your claim: You throw in a strawman and rephrase the WaPo argument. No governor in any State can by the authority as Governor change Constitutional rights. You use weasel words to claim that a Governor might do something that might have an effect on the legislature that might result in a Constitutional Amendment that would HAVE TO BE RATIFIED BY A MAJORITY OF THE STATES NOT THE GOVERNOR.

Your claim is patently false based on the wording of the Constitution:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

No State Governor can change the Constituion with their powers as Governor. WaPo tells the truth, your explaination is fallacious.

There .. that took, what, 4 minutes.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No State Governor can change the Constituion with their powers as Governor. WaPo tells the truth, your explaination is fallacious.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott on Friday called for a constitutional convention of states to offer nine amendments in order to "restore the Rule of Law and return the Constitution to its intended purpose."

Influence is power in politics
Governors can call for a constitutional convention to propose amendments to the constitution . Governors also have influence Over there state legislatures.

Here’s the quote for the Washington post .

Governors do not have the power to "get rid of" constitutional rights.

While governors can’t act unilaterally to get rid of constitutional rights.

Influence gives them the power during the constitutional convention process . Influence is the power and can lead to changes in the constitution .

My original point stands and hasn’t been debunked .

Try again .

a reply to: Fallingdown

You admit that a State Governor can't take away a Constitutional right in your argument claiming that they can. A Governor, according to you can wield influence, but then you clearly state that they change or alter Constitutioanl rights they cannot beacause of being a GOVERNOR.

However, this exercise is quite instructive as it is plain that you must be right regardless of how self-contradictory your claims are.

You judge yourself correct and in your own mind you are.

Thanks for playing.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No that’s not what I said you’re wrong again .

I know what I’ll show you why with sourced material to help you understand .

In your reply could you please quote your sources because as of now all you have is an “opinion” .

You admit that a State Governor can't take away a Constitutional right in your argument claiming that they can

I said the governor can’t take away constitutional rights unilaterally .

A Governor, according to you can wield influence, but then you clearly state that they change or alter Constitutioanl rights they cannot beacause of being a GOVERNOR.

As I clearly stated yes they can change constitutional rights . ( just not unilaterally )

They wield influence in the constitutional convention process that can amend the constitution .

Here is the Washington post rebuttal position that you claim is true ........

Governors do not have the power to "get rid of" constitutional rights.

That is wrong .

The the power is derived from the influence they wield over a convention of states called through article 5 .

Power definition .

the possession of control or command over others; authority; ascendancy:
power over men's minds.

Source, please link yours also

Besides a state governors power to wield influence over the state legislatures .


The governor can influence the outcome of constitutional conventions which are called to propose amendments to the US Constitution .

First after the application for constitutional convention has been approved by legislature. The governor needs to sign it in order for it to be enacted.

During the ratification process governors have a choice by state law to have the legislature ratify the proposed amendment. Or they can call a ratification convention of ordinary citizens . Governors can nominate the delegates out of ordinary citizenry for a ratification convention at state level .

Please include sources in your rebuttal

Finally

In the final stage of ratification by 3/4 of states. The office of the federal register sends notifications of the proposed Amendment to the governors of each state. The governors need to submit that notification to either state legislatures or ratification conventions so it can be voted on for approval .

Please include sources in your rebuttal

The above examples are a few ways that prove the Washington post ( and your) positions were wrong. Governors do indeed have power a.k.a. influence in amending the US Constitution .



GN

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Gryphon66

No that’s not what I said you’re wrong again .

Opinion, not fact.

I know what I’ll show you why with sourced material to help you understand .

Okie dokie, we'll see. Save the silly tactics of implying that your words are too complicated for me to understand.

In your reply could you please quote your sources because as of now all you have is an “opinion” .

You admit that a State Governor can't take away a Constitutional right in your argument claiming that they can

I said the governor can’t take away constitutional rights unilaterally .

A Governor, according to you can wield influence, but then you clearly state that they change or alter Constitutioanl rights they cannot beacause of being a GOVERNOR.

As I clearly stated yes they can change constitutional rights . ( just not unilaterally )

They wield influence in the constitutional convention process that can amend the constitution .

Here is the Washington post rebuttal position that you claim is true ........

Governors do not have the power to "get rid of" constitutional rights.

That is wrong .

The the power is derived from the influence they wield over a convention of states called through article 5 .

Power definition .

the possession of control or command over others; authority; ascendancy:
power over men's minds.

Source, please link yours also

Besides a state governors power to wield influence over the state legislatures .


The governor can influence the outcome of constitutional conventions which are called to propose amendments to the US Constitution .

First after the application for constitutional convention has been approved by legislature. The governor needs to sign it in order for it to be enacted.

During the ratification process governors have a choice by state law to have the legislature ratify the proposed amendment. Or they can call a ratification convention of ordinary citizens . Governors can nominate the delegates out of ordinary citizenry for a ratification convention at state level .

Please include sources in your rebuttal

Finally

In the final stage of ratification by 3/4 of states. The office of the federal register sends notifications of the proposed Amendment to the governors of each state. The governors need to submit that notification to either state legislatures or ratification conventions so it can be voted on for approval .

Please include sources in your rebuttal

The above examples are a few ways that prove the Washington post ( and your) positions were wrong. Governors do indeed have power a.k.a. influence in amending the US Constitution .

GN

The rest of your post I'm just going to respond to in order, I'm really not interested enough to do all the cutting and pasting.

The claim made by WaPo was that a Governor cannot take away Constitutional rights. That is completely true. You're still desperately trying to weasle in the idea that "influencing a Constitutional Convention" is the same thing. It's not by any meaninful sense.

I quoted the Constitution to prove my assertion that State Governors CANNOT change the Constitution. You ignored it. You want to ADD words to the WaPo claims and then refute those. That's strawman argumentation and it's fallacious.

You're claiming that within the several methods of amending our Constitution that a Governor being involved somewhere along the process means that they used their power to take away Constitutional rights. If you can't see the absurdity of that claim, I really can't help you.

Let's take a State and see if your "wielding influence is the same as power" is valid, shall we?
State of Georgia Constitution (if you don't like this, pick a state)

The powers and duties of the Georgia Governor are listed in SECTION II. DUTIES AND POWERS OF GOVERNOR on pages 33-35 of the linked document.

Can you show me anything that states the Georgia Governor has the power or duty to change the Constitution (of Georgia, or of the US)?

You cannot, because it's not there. He can call the Georgia General Assembly for special sessions. He can make speeches asking for Constitutional Amendments, but he or she CANNOT take Constitutional Rights AWAY FROM ANYONE.

That's all I've got time and interest for at the moment. Crow on.

a reply to: Fallingdown

Washington post 12,000 trump lies

Donald Trump - 25,000 Washington Post lies.

See how easy it is to play this childish game?

WaPo with yet another meaningless made up statistic.

They call themselves *journalists*?!?

They should all go stick their heads in the toilet and keep flushing until they wake up.

-smh-

a reply to: Gryphon66

The claim made by WaPo was that a Governor cannot take away Constitutional rights.

No I said the governor cannot take away constitutional rights unilaterally. But then you know that you’re still trying to play word games.

You’re still desperately trying to weasle in the idea that "influencing a Constitutional Convention" is the same thing. It's not by any meaninful sense.

There’s no weaseling about it. The states have the power to propose constitutional amendments and ratify them. Unless you’re telling me the constitution is just some silly piece of paper.

I quoted the Constitution to prove my assertion that State Governors CANNOT change the Constitution. You ignored it.

I didn’t ignore it. I’ll go on record right now and agree you did make that point.

The problem was you were wrong.

As I will show you below.

You want to ADD words to the WaPo claims and then refute those.

Quote exactly which individual words I added. Hmmmm?

That's strawman argumentation and it's fallacious.

That’s an opinion not a fact.

You're claiming that within the several methods of amending our Constitution that a Governor being involved somewhere along the process means that they used their power to take away Constitutional rights.

You’re claiming that the bully pulpit has no power. That is a naïve statement at best.

Actually I’ve given you examples with sources. That you can’t dispute so you’re giving your opinion which isn’t a fact. By your standards that’s “begging the question” which is a fallacy.

Let's take a State and see if your "wielding influence is the same as power" is valid, shall we?
State of Georgia Constitution (if you don't like this, pick a state)
The powers and duties of the Georgia Governor are listed in SECTION II. DUTIES AND POWERS OF GOVERNOR on pages 33-35 of the linked document.

Can you show me anything that states the Georgia Governor has the power or duty to change the Constitution (of Georgia, or of the US)?

You cannot, because it's not there. He can call the Georgia General Assembly for special sessions. He can make speeches asking for Constitutional Amendments, but he or she CANNOT take Constitutional Rights AWAY FROM ANYONE.

That's all I've got time and interest for at the moment. Crow on

I’m fine with that state. In fact I left that point unsourced because I knew you would take it Stacy Abrams helped sweeten the deal.

Here’s the state of George’s application to the federal government for a constitutional convention in 2014. Pay particular attention to who enacted the application.



Now let’s discuss your proof”.

Your position is that your source shows no evidence and that’s evidence that I’m wrong. Right?

That’s a fallacy. You might have to help me on that one but isn’t it called a false dilemma? It’s hard to keep up with your output .

But thanks for the source it’s solidified my position.

Under duties of the governor.

Paragraph VI. Information and recommendations to the General Assembly. At the beginning of each regular session and from time to time, the Governor may give the General Assembly information on the state of the state and recommend to its consideration such measures as the Governor may deem necessary or expedient.

So thanks to your input we can now prove.

#1 The governor can instruct the General assembly on a constitutional convention. (influence)

#2 The General assembly can pass a resolution to apply for the convention.

#3 Then governor signs it and sends it to be sent of to congress.

Sure sounds like a lot of influence and power to me. 😎

a reply to: Fallingdown

Also governors have the right to restrict access to guns in their state. For example many states ban individuals from owning a firearm. For example convicted felons, convicted misdemeanor domestic violence or stalking offenders, persons with an outstanding felony warrant, fugitives from justice, unlawful aliens, persons with court-mandated protective orders issued against them, persons who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, adjudicated mentally ill by a court. So the state can be more restrictive than the federal government. Add the fact that they can also control who can get carry permits and what makes someone eligible to carry means governors can limit who can actually carry. Meaning the second amendment ends at your front door.

a reply to: Fallingdown

Did a Constitutional Convention happen?

Did anyone's Constitutional rights change?

Did the Governor's endorsement make any difference?

Nope, nope and nope.

WaPo's statement stands: a State Governor has no power to take away anyone's Constitutional rights.

a reply to: dragonridr

Can a State Governor repeal the Second Amendment?

Nope.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: dragonridr

Can a State Governor repeal the Second Amendment?

Nope.

Yes through constitutional convention however that process involves state legislature. But governors find it easier to restrict access in the state much easier that way.

They are called red flag laws and states are starting to implement them. Did you know Virginia for example is trying to restrict the number of guns you can buy?

To say a govenor can't control access to guns is silly. Some states are far more restrictive than others.

a reply to: dragonridr

Can you cite the part of the Constitution (or any State Constitution) that gives a State Governor the power to call, control or decide the results of a Constitutional Convention?

SCOTUS has ruled in Heller that there are reasonable limitations on the Second as with all rights, but that doesn't give Governors any power to take Constituional rights away.

I have not said that a Governor can't control access to guns as permitted within the laws of their State (passed by the Legislature), but enforcing State law is not taking away Constitutional rights by any means according to the Supreme Court.

Your claim is that because a Governor can enforce extant laws, he or she is taking away Consitutional rights, and that is false on it's face, again, see District of Columbia v. Heller.

a reply to: Fallingdown

The Washington Post is the Swamp's go-to for information that 90% of Americans care nothing about.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Fallingdown

The Washington Post is the Swamp's go-to for information that 90% of Americans care nothing about.

That's an excellent example of an opinion that has no basis in fact; I've been making that argument. Thanks CWM.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Did a Constitutional Convention happen?

Never said it did you’re setting up a strawman fallacy .

Did anyone's Constitutional rights change?

Another strawman fallacy .

Did anyone's Constitutional rights change?

How do you know the governor’s signature on the application didn’t make a difference ? You’re giving a unverified opinion and pretending it’s a fact .

Nope, nope and nope.

WaPo's statement stands: a State Governor has no power to take away anyone's Constitutional rights.

Translation .........

a reply to: Fallingdown

It's not a strawman at all. You claimed that the Governor's agreement with a call for a Constitutional Convention some how proves that a Governor can take away Constitutional rights and that is false on it's face. May I refer you once again to the US Constitution?

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

That is how the Constitution is amended. Amending the Constitution is the only way that a Governor could take away the Constitutional rights of a citizen, and the Constitution makes no reference in Article V to State Governors.

Your allegedly arguing that a Governor can take away Constituional rights by supporting a Constitutional Convention. It is not a straw argument to say that in your specific example, despite the Governor's acts to influence, no Convention happened.

Again, WaPo is quite correct that no State Governor has the power to take away Constitutional rights.

a reply to: carewemust

Presenting 12,000 lies as facts is beyond absurd. It proves to me that many liberals don’t believe the news. They just look to it for lying points and when confronted they insist everything is true .

a reply to: Gryphon66

Did a Constitutional Convention happen?

I never said the cost of tuition or convention happened.

So yes it’s a strawman unless you can prove I said that .

I’m waiting

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: carewemust

Presenting 12,000 lies as facts is beyond absurd. It proves to me that many liberals don’t believe the news. They just look to it for lying points and when confronted they insist everything is true .

Yet, you've stated several times that you have not reviewed all 12,000 or even a significant number. In this thread you address three and you do nothing to prove that there is anything false about the statements made by WaPo.

Partisan hatred of a newspaper does not falsehoods make. Neither does contiunual repetition.