Question/Poll: Executive Privilege vs Formalized Impeachment Inquiry Subpoena

[RationalityIsLost101]

I'm curious where people stand on this issue. I believe the deciding factor in the impeachment inquiry for many as to whether or not they would support removal of the president is based on whether sufficient evidence is present.

I pondered on the founders intention of impeachment proceedings, transparency in governing, and balance of power between the three branches of government. Congressional oversight of the executive branch has been a cornerstone in our checks and balances since the founding of our republic. When you answer this, don't hastily choose a decision based on just recent events but think about answering in the context of any administration, republican or democrat. I believe the correct answer would be one that best serves the interest of the american people.

Upon reflection, my personal view is that if we provide congress with the power to remove a duly elected president, then we should also allow congress to obtain any document or witness testimony according to oversight of the executive branch during a formalized impeachment proceeding so that an informed decision can be made in full transparency with the american people. In light of the partisan environment we are currently facing, I feel anything less would lead to the potential of obstruction of congressional oversight that would thus not allow the people's representatives to ensure our government is working at all times in the interest of sustaining our republic.

This is but a mere opinion, and I welcome the thoughts of others on this topic. Please refrain from attacking each other in this thread. I'd like anyone to feel free to honestly express what they think is in the best interest of our nation. I don't expect us to agree on this topic, but at least respect the positions of others.

 

[Xzi]

I'd take it one step further in light of abuses uncovered by this impeachment inquiry: mischaracterizing damaging information about any government official as "classified" should itself be a criminal and/or impeachable offense. Absolutely nothing should be off-limits to congressmen and women with the highest level of security clearance during an impeachment inquiry. Otherwise they cannot properly fulfill their oversight duties to the extent outlined in the constitution. The moment we accept the argument that the president is akin to a king beyond the reach of the law is the same moment we can no longer rightly call ourselves a democracy or a republic.

 

[cots]

I'd take it one step further in light of abuses uncovered by this impeachment inquiry: mischaracterizing damaging information about any government official as "classified" should itself be a criminal and/or impeachable offense. Absolutely nothing should be off-limits to congressmen and women with the highest level of security clearance during an impeachment inquiry. Otherwise they cannot properly fulfill their oversight duties to the extent outlined in the constitution. The moment we accept the argument that the president is akin to a king beyond the reach of the law is the same moment we can no longer rightly call ourselves a democracy or a republic.

Moving the goalpost so many times you have to start creating entirely new football fields. You can't even settle on a reason you're impeaching him, which is very dishonest, but convenient because all of the reasons your party keeping switching from have fallen flat on their face. Your hate is leaking. Don't you have anyone else you can attack? May I suggest attacking Mr. Roger's as your overlords on CNN posted a hate article today about him. Maybe stooping deeper into your desire to hurt others will help you deal with the fact Trump isn't going anywhere. I'm going to really enjoy you not admitting defeat when Trump beats these charges. You're never wrong and in your eyes Trump never even won the election and is still guilty of whatever you're claiming Mueller cleared him of (remember, the official verbage was Collusion, but seeings as you like to play Liberal word games he was possibly guilty of sneezing in the wind). You're so pitiful it's enjoyable because people like you make up the Liberal party and since that it shows me your party is so pathetic thus cementing the fact your attempts to control every aspect of my life are always going to fail. I can think for myself and don't require to be told how to live my life (especially in trade for lies promising free handouts or for a false sense of security).

#fucksocialism #TDSALERT #brownslaveryisstillslavery #walkaway #MAGA2020

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I'm curious where people stand on this issue. I believe the deciding factor in the impeachment inquiry for many as to whether or not they would support removal of the president is based on whether sufficient evidence is present.

I pondered on the founders intention of impeachment proceedings, transparency in governing, and balance of power between the three branches of government. Congressional oversight of the executive branch has been a cornerstone in our checks and balances since the founding of our republic. When you answer this, don't hastily choose a decision based on just recent events but think about answering in the context of any administration, republican or democrat. I believe the correct answer would be one that best serves the interest of the american people.

Upon reflection, my personal view is that if we provide congress with the power to remove a duly elected president, then we should also allow congress to obtain any document or witness testimony according to oversight of the executive branch during a formalized impeachment proceeding so that an informed decision can be made in full transparency with the american people. In light of the partisan environment we are currently facing, I feel anything less would lead to the potential of obstruction of congressional oversight that would thus not allow the people's representatives to ensure our government is working at all times in the interest of sustaining our republic.

This is but a mere opinion, and I welcome the thoughts of others on this topic. Please refrain from attacking each other in this thread. I'd like anyone to feel free to honestly express what they think is in the best interest of our nation. I don't expect us to agree on this topic, but at least respect the positions of others.

Congress has some oversight over the executive branch, but it doesn't control it nor is granted unfettered access to it. That goes both ways all around the board. Trump doesn't lose his executive powers unless he's removed from office. Trump is not going to be denied his executive powers just because someone accused him of something. Trump can deny to give them anything he wants. That's until a Court orders him to hand it over. Just because they accuse him of something doesn't mean they get to take his branch over based on simple accusations (regardless if there is concrete evidence, but in this case all we have is "assumptions" he's guilty). Seeings as Congress is not a Court of law they can get fucked. You also have to take the situation into context. It's not remotely fair. You continue to go along and support this shit while purposely choosing to ignore it's been premeditated and planned all along. You're expecting people to simply ignore the entire context surrounding the issue or probably just expect them to not be aware of the backstory, which of course the latter being dishonest, but the Liberals can't win this honestly so they have to cheat. Fuck Congress. Trump shouldn't give them shit.

Look. Just because someone excuses you of something doesn't mean you have to give into their every demand or be treated like you're guilty. This isn't #metoo where you have you life ruined over some angry women with a score to settle based on the fact that 20 years go she forced you to have sex with her and you dumped her shorty after and she can't get over it and is now accusing you of what she actually did to you thus resulting in the public getting you fired from you job. It's funny how the public courts will simply blacklist you for someone claiming you did something wrong. Well, if that's the case @Xzi molested my dog and since I am saying this is my assumption I should be allowed access to his gbatemp account without having to provide any sort of proof he actually did cause my dog to walk around crooked for a week. Sorry bud, you're only guilty after the fact you've been proven guilty.

 

[Deleted User]

Moving the goalpost so many times you have to start creating entirely new football fields. You can't even settle on a reason you're impeaching him

strawman, motioning a argument that has not been made. In his case, has not mentioned trump at all in his post, Speaking in general.

which is very dishonest, but convenient because all of the reasons your party keeping switching from have fallen flat on their face.

hasty generalization. Comparing a collective to a single person.

Your hate is leaking. Don't you have anyone else you can attack?

strawman and also ad hominem. Strawman because he was not specifically attacking Trump. And was speaking in general. However you advanced a argument he never made, that he was attacking. Ad hominem because you claim his hate is leaking, which is a attack on him and does not counter the arugment.

May I suggest attacking Mr. Roger's as your overlords on CNN posted a hate article today about him. Maybe stooping deeper into your desire to hurt others will help you deal with the fact Trump isn't going anywhere. I'm going to really enjoy you not admitting defeat when Trump beats these charges. You're never wrong and in your eyes Trump never even won the election and is still guilty of whatever you're claiming Mueller cleared him of (remember, the official verbage was Collusion, but seeings as you like to play Liberal word games he was possibly guilty of sneezing in the wind). You're so pitiful it's enjoyable because people like you make up the Liberal party and since that it shows me your party is so pathetic thus cementing the fact your attempts to control every aspect of my life are always going to fail. I can think for myself and don't require to be told how to live my life (especially in trade for lies promising free handouts or for a false sense of security).

#fucksocialism #TDSALERT #brownslaveryisstillslavery #walkaway #MAGA2020

I can say many other things, but at this point it's clear that you are biased. Your attacking the individual, not the argument. You proceeded arguments that do not counter the original point. Your full of logical fallacies. So I must ask, who's hate is really leaking?
oh and before you potentially try to say "ad hominum" as a claim that I am attacking you. I can actually logically conclude this, while you cannot.
Due to you have attacking the person, not using logic and using logical fallacies, I can safely say you are more out to push your own agenda that listen to others, given that you ignore and or not properly refute the other side's argument. Therefore because that you do those things, and because you bash on liberals or democrats often. I can conclude that you are hateful towards liberals, and therefore, leaking in hate.

 

[Xzi]

Moving the goalpost so many times you have to start creating entirely new football fields. You can't even settle on a reason you're impeaching him, which is very dishonest, but convenient because all of the reasons your party keeping switching from have fallen flat on their face.

As usual your inane rants have nothing to do with the topic at hand. If I wanted the opinion of the most spineless Trump sycophant on the forums I would've asked for it. IDGAF if you want to continue taking everything an obese geriatric with NPD and Alzheimer's says at face value, just don't waste your time chiming in to conversations that are completely out of your depth and comfort zone. Especially when it's obvious you have nothing of value to contribute.

 

[cots]

strawman, motioning a argument that has not been made. In his case, has not mentioned trump at all in his post, Speaking in general.


hasty generalization. Comparing a collective to a single person.


strawman and also ad hominem. Strawman because he was not specifically attacking Trump. And was speaking in general. However you advanced a argument he never made, that he was attacking. Ad hominem because you claim his hate is leaking, which is a attack on him and does not counter the arugment.


I can say many other things, but at this point it's clear that you are biased. Your attacking the individual, not the argument. You proceeded arguments that do not counter the original point. Your full of logical fallacies. So I must ask, who's hate is really leaking?
oh and before you potentially try to say "ad hominum" I can actually logically conclude this, while you cannot.
Due to you have attacking the person, not using logic and using logical fallacies, I can safely say you are more out to push your own agenda that listen to others, given that you ignore and or not properly refute the other side's argument. Therefore because that you do those things, and because you bash on liberals or democrats often. I can conclude that you are hateful towards liberals, and therefore, leaking in hate.

I'm glad you're starting to be able to identify and pick out ways I go about presenting points that you don't agree are valid. However, I disagree with your assessments. I do have an agenda. I hate Liberals and I have good cause to. They are openly admitting to want to rip up the constitution, take away my guns and force socialism on our country. This entire premeditated impeachment effort is a prime example of how treacherous they are. Trump has executive power while he is President. End of story.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

As usual your inane rants have nothing to do with the topic at hand. If I wanted the opinion of the most spineless Trump sycophant on the forums I would've asked for it. IDGAF if you want to continue taking everything an obese geriatric with NPD and Alzheimer's says at face value, just don't waste your time chiming in to conversations that are completely out of your depth and comfort zone. Especially when it's obvious you have nothing of value to contribute.

So now you're not only dumb, but also blind? I addressed the subject matter, but I guess it's convenient to overlook it and simply attack me. You see, I was able to address the subject matter while attacking you. I guess doing two things at once is too much for your little pee brain to handle. Or maybe, my point about the subject matter was valid so you had nothing to rebute? Trump has executive power while he is President. End of story.

 

[Xzi]

I do have an agenda. I hate Liberals and I have good cause to. They are openly admitting to want to rip up the constitution, take away my guns and force socialism on our country.

Impeachment is a constitutional process. Bribery is specifically mentioned in the constitution as an impeachable act. You don't give two shits about what the constitution actually says, you just want to keep pretending it's on your side. You're no different from members of the Westboro Baptist church pretending they represent Jesus' teachings.

 

[Deleted User]

I'm glad you're starting to be able to identify and pick out ways I go about presenting points that you don't agree are valid. However, I disagree with your assessments. I do have an agenda. I hate Liberals and I have good cause to. They are openly admitting to want to rip up the constitution, take away my guns and force socialism on our country. This entire premeditated impeachment effort is a prime example of how treacherous they are. Trump has executive power while he is President. End of story.

Hasty generalization. Not all liberals desire to rip up the constitution and with my own bias can counter as untrue. It's more complex than that.
and along with that some republicans to many, not all. Are ignoring the bribery clause.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I'm glad you're starting to be able to identify and pick out ways I go about presenting points that you don't agree are valid. However, I disagree with your assessments. I do have an agenda. I hate Liberals and I have good cause to. They are openly admitting to want to rip up the constitution, take away my guns and force socialism on our country. This entire premeditated impeachment effort is a prime example of how treacherous they are. Trump has executive power while he is President. End of story..

as for forcing socialism and taking guns, again, hasty generalization. And as far as I know, the rules state that if bribery were to be done, or THE ATTEMPT at bribery, is an impeachable offense.

 

[cots]

Hasty generalization. Not all liberals desire to rip up the constitution and with my own bias can counter as untrue. It's more complex than that.
and along with that some republicans to many, not all. Are ignoring the bribery clause.

You're not going to suck me into the "Let me distract you with my right hand while I stab you in the back with my left hand" speel. Liberals can openly express their hatred and desire to destroy the country, but I'm evil for expressing my hatred for them doing so and my desire to stop them? It's clear where your priories lie. Hey, at least I'm honest and don't play word games. I don't need to hide my agenda.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

as for forcing socialism and taking guns, again, hasty generalization. And as far as I know, the rules state that if bribery were to be done, or THE ATTEMPT at bribery, is an impeachable offense.

That may be so, but the topic of this thread is if Trump should give up his executive powers simply based on the fact he's been accused of a crime. It's pretty simple. The President has executive powers until he is no longer the President. The Liberals aren't going to get to manipulate this one. It's clear and cut. So go ahead and play all of the games you want to try to convince people otherwise. Just like this 10th impeachment attempt it's not going to work.

 

[Deleted User]

You're not going to suck me into the "Let me distract you with my right hand while I stab you in the back with my left hand" speel. Liberals can openly express their hatred and desire to destroy the country, but I'm evil for expressing my hatred for them doing so and my desire to stop them? It's clear where your priories lie. Hey, at least I'm honest and don't play word games. I don't need to hide my agenda.

Hasty generalization, you are treating liberals as a thing than rather a collective of many people that have varying desires/beliefs, with a few that are common.
I'm a liberal in social standards, I don't wish for the country to be destroyed. Hence, hasty generalization. If the left did something fucked, I'll look into it and change my position dependent on my own ideas and views.
It's the reason I don't affiliate or applied as a Democrat or Republican because I'm always changing.
both are at fault and have done shit things.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

as for my agenda, I'm sick and tired of bullshit. Left and Right, and this mindset this idea that you have to fully agree with a "party" is disgusting. So my agenda is to point out the logical fallacies so we can start reaching logical conclusions and have people no longer be treated or treat themselves as full allied to one party, but instead, something more complex than that. I'm done playing the emotional game, and I'm sick and tired of hearing arguments that lack substance due to fallacies.
I have no loyalty to the concept of "Democrats" or "Republicans"

 

[cots]

Hasty generalization, you are treating liberals as a thing than rather a collective of many people that have varying desires/beliefs, with a few that are common.
I'm a liberal in social standards, I don't wish for the country to be destroyed. Hence, hasty generalization. If the left did something fucked, I'll look into it and change my position dependent on my own ideas and views.
It's the reason I don't affiliate or applied as a democrat or republican Democrat or Republican because I'm always changing.
both are at fault and have done shit things.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

as for my agenda, I'm sick and tired of bullshit. Left and Right, and this mindset this idea that you have to fully agree with a "party" is disgusting. So my agenda is to point out the logical fallacies so we can start reaching logical conclusions. Done playing the emotional game.

There's nothing wrong with generalizations. Look the up the definition of the word. It's neutral and is often used as a starting point. However, I call it like I see it. There might be a tree growing in the Amazon rain Forrest that produces rainbow colored berries that cure brain cancer, but until I run into any trees like I'm going to have to agree that the rest of the trees fruit don't cure cancer. I also guess you've missed the part where I don't belong to a party. I guess your generalized mindset that if someone shares some values that align with the Conservative party of "if someone is defending the President they a white racist old white supremacists". It's really funny how that if you ask questions or say something that goes against the Liberal agenda they automatically judge you based on their own generalizations and then black list you. Talk about bias racist generalizing, tsk ... tsk ... Sorry, but I don't belong to a party that would try to ruin my life or exclude me from their party for saying a few words or phrases or claiming that I voted differently then they did.

You're also avoiding the fact that I stated that while the President is the President he or she has executive powers. There's no tip toeing around that one. Do you deny this reality like the rest of the Liberals?

 

[Deleted User]

There's nothing wrong with generalizations. Look the up the definition of the word. It's neutral and is often used as a starting point. However, I call it like I see it. There might be a tree growing in the Amazon rain Forrest that produces rainbow colored berries that cure brain cancer, but until I run into any trees like I'm going to have to agree that the rest of the trees fruit don't cure cancer. I also guess you've missed the part where I don't belong to a party. I guess your generalized mindset that if someone shares some values that align with the Conservative party of "if someone is defending the President they a white racist old white supremacists". It's really funny how that if you ask questions or say something that goes against the Liberal agenda they automatically judge you based on their own generalizations and then black list you. Talk about bias racist generalizing, tsk ... tsk ...

You're also avoiding the fact that I stated that while the President is the President he or she has executive powers. There's no tip toeing around that one.

There is something wrong with generalizations, and there is a way that it can be flawed. Hasty generalizations is a fallacy involving a complex thing, and turning it into something that is oversimplified.
For example it would be the equivalent of me saying that all all Germans buy ford trucks. In your argument, it was all Democrats want to be socialist,or/ and destroy the constitution. This is the logical fallacy I just stated. Not all Germans buy trucks, because germans are people, and people are complex and unique, nor do all liberals/democrats want to be socialist because they are a people, and again, complex and unique.

as a sidenote, you also forward another straw man. I never said you were in a party. I stated my views as you asked my bias.
and as another sidenote, yes I can tiptoe that actually. I never argued for or against it. Nor did you refer to me.

 

[Xzi]

It's obvious cots lost all ability to view things objectively a long time ago. Veterans are starving to death on the streets, diabetics are dying from rationing insulin that's as expensive as gold, farmers are committing suicide because they view themselves as failures for being unable to turn a profit, and in the face of all this, the Republicans' only solution is to offer more tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy.

These aren't problems that suddenly popped up yesterday, they've been compounded by decades of inaction against crony capitalism, and I'm more than willing to state that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did little to help matters. However, they weren't actively hostile toward the working class and lower class as Republican presidents have been in that same time frame. Presidents are public servants, they're meant to be criticized and critiqued by the populace. Not worshiped as kings. All that does is enable corruption to flourish, as it has under the current administration.

 

[cots]

Impeachment is a constitutional process. Bribery is specifically mentioned in the constitution as an impeachable act. You don't give two shits about what the constitution actually says, you just want to keep pretending it's on your side. You're no different from members of the Westboro Baptist church pretending they represent Jesus' teachings.

Sure, but you have to prove the President is guilty first and until the President is removed from office they have executive powers. Seeings as this entire impeachment effort was premeditated and it's not the first attempt plus all of the evidence are simple assumptions you're going to lose. I do however understand you're a Liberal so you'll never admit defeat even after agreeing to the rules. Such a petty existence.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

It's obvious cots lost all ability to view things objectively a long time ago. Veterans are starving to death on the streets, diabetics are dying from rationing insulin that's as expensive as gold, farmers are committing suicide because they view themselves as failures for being unable to turn a profit, and in the face of all this, the Republicans' only solution is to offer more tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy.

These aren't problems that suddenly popped up yesterday, they've been compounded by decades of inaction against crony capitalism, and I'm more than willing to state that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did little to help matters. However, they weren't actively hostile toward the working class and lower class as Republican presidents have been in that same time frame. Presidents are public servants, they're meant to be criticized and critiqued by the populace. Not worshiped as kings. All that does is enable corruption to flourish, as it has under the current administration.

*Yawn* ... Yet deflection is okay when the Liberals do it. What does any of this have to do with the fact that the President has executive powers until they are no longer the President?

 

[Xzi]

Sure, but you have to prove the President is guilty first and until the President is removed from office they have executive powers.

Executive privilege only extends so far, and the Trump administration continues to abuse claims of executive privilege in reference to people and conversations where it does not apply. Such as individuals no longer working in the administration. That's the issue at contention here.

Seeings as this entire impeachment effort was premeditated and it's not the first attempt plus all of the evidence are simple assumptions you're going to lose. I do however understand you're a Liberal so you'll never admit defeat even after agreeing to the rules. Such a petty existence.

What's "petty" is failing to understand that this isn't a football game. It's not about winning or losing. It's about idiots and sycophants allowing corruption to go completely unchecked because they don't understand anything about the legal and political proceedings involved. Congratulations, you "win" compromised elections and the degradation of democracy. Just don't cry about it when Democrats attempt to use that to their advantage just as Trump has.

 

[cots]

In your argument, it was all Democrats want to be socialist,or/ and destroy the constitution.

Let me correct your quote.

"In your argument, it was all Liberals want to be socialist,or/ and destroy the constitution."

Hey, I read the Liberals Communist Manifesto book. I'm not sure that publishing your end goal with detailed steps on how you're going about the issue and allowing the people you're trying to overthrow access to it was the best idea, but hey at least I know exactly what they're up to. The thing is, they don't deny it. So your point is mute. Liberals openly admit they want to implement socialism (get rid of the Constitution) and take our guns away. "But we only want to take your assault rifles away". One gun being handed over is too many. They're not getting hundreds of thousands that's for sure. And fuck, seeings as they can't even get the definition of an assault rifle correct I don't believe them. Just like this forum subject. They're trying to justify taking away Trump's executive powers because he's been accused of a crime. Sorry, but until he's not longer President he has executive powers. You can't overthrow the executive branch based on accusations that are rooted in assumptions. Actually, you can't overthrow the execute branch regardless. Trump has executive powers until he's no longer the President. End of issue.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Executive privilege only extends so far, and the Trump administration continues to abuse claims of executive privilege in reference to people and conversations where it does not apply. Such as individuals no longer working in the administration. That's the issue at contention here.

Sorry, the issue is whether he should give up his powers. What he does with them is not the issue so you're simple manipulative tactics and Liberal word game mumbo jumbo isn't going to work this time. You're dancing around the fact that while he's President he has executive powers. He's not giving them up because he's been accused of something. End of story.

 

[Lacius]

Sure, but you have to prove the President is guilty first and until the President is removed from office they have executive powers. Seeings as this entire impeachment effort was premeditated and it's not the first attempt plus all of the evidence are simple assumptions you're going to lose. I do however understand you're a Liberal so you'll never admit defeat even after agreeing to the rules. Such a petty existence.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



*Yawn* ... Yet deflection is okay when the Liberals do it. What does any of this have to do with the fact that the President has executive powers until they are no longer the President?

The evidence speaks for itself. Trump is guilty.

 

[Xzi]

Liberals openly admit they want to implement socialism (get rid of the Constitution) and take our guns away.

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. The New Deal was implemented with no change to the constitution, and Bernie Sanders is the most pro-gun candidate among Democrats. Historically, Republicans started pushing hardest for gun control when the black panthers started arming the African American community en masse. But I doubt you care about historical context, as you're just parroting the things you hear on talk radio and Faux News.

 

[cots]

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. The New Deal was implemented with no change to the constitution, and Bernie Sanders is the most pro-gun candidate among Democrats. Historically, Republicans started pushing hardest for gun control when the black panthers started arming the African American community en masse. But I doubt you care about historical context, as you're just parroting the things you hear on talk radio and Faux News.

Handing over one gun is too many. Pro-Gun isn't "You can keep certain guns, but we'll take the rest of them away from you". You're not fooling anyone. Anyway, you'll have to pry my AR out of my cold dead hands. Good luck. Anyway, I'm done with gibberish.

The President has executive powers while they are President. End of issue.

 

[Deleted User]

Let me correct your quote.

"In your argument, it was all Liberals want to be socialist,or/ and destroy the constitution."

Hey, I read the Liberals Communist Manifesto book. I'm not sure that publishing your end goal with detailed steps on how you're going about the issue and allowing the people you're trying to overthrow access to it was the best idea, but hey at least I know exactly what they're up to. The thing is, they don't deny it. So your point is mute. Liberals openly admit they want to implement socialism (get rid of the Constitution) and take our guns away. "But we only want to take your assault rifles away". Seeings as they can't even get the definition of an assault rifle correct I don't believe them. Just like this forum subject. They're trying to justify taking away Trump's executive powers because he's been accused of a crime. Sorry, but until he's not longer President he was executive powers. You can't overthrow the executive branch based on accusations that are rooted in assumptions. Actually, you can't overthrow the execute branch regardless. Trump has executive powers until he's no longer the President. End of issue.

hasty generalization again, given that you corrected my statement, to Liberals. then proceed to use the possessive noun of Liberal's, referring to the communist Manifesto, I can state it's another hasty generalization. The implication that all of them have read it, or have agreed upon it. a lot of the argument uses hasty generalization. Meanwhile you throw another straw man. Claiming that I had made a point in favor aka "So your point is mute" line. Since I never argued in favor or against, nor have I presented a argument related, I can ignore the rest.
yawn
so how much more do I have to here?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Handing over one gun is too many. Pro-Gun isn't "You can keep certain guns, but we'll take the rest of them away from you". You're not fooling anyone. Anyway, you'll have to pry my AR out of my cold dead hands. Good luck. Anyway, I'm done with gibberish.

The President has executive powers while they are President. End of issue.

False dilemma fallacy. Using either or argument. Either people defend their gun rights, or liberals will take all our guns. While ignoring that again, not all liberals want to remove all guns entirely. This fallacy works by giving a false dichotomy of choices, while ignoring all the other solutions.