• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Tells Freshman Congresswomen to ‘Go Back’ to the Countries They Came From

All that wasted effort and bafflegab effort just to deflect away from the fact that you totally flopped on the actual subject that started this conversation. Let's list the errors you made and still stand:

1. Confused "officers of the United States" in Art. II, sec. 2 and 3 with military officers (and you still seem to be confused).

2. First claimed POTUS only nominates officers above the rank of 07 (even though you yourself showed above that it's all officers 04 and above without apparently realizing and certainly not admitting that you were wrong.

3. Brought up the completely irrelevant and unrelated matter and singular case of a POTUS commissioning a civilian to the rank of during war time and even there muffed it by citing the wrong man.

This is typical for rightwingers who so often are out of their depth on a subject and so arrogant that they don't even pause to look anything up before launching what they think is going to be a "gotcha" comment, gets hoist on his own petard then throws all the garbage he can dredge up in a desperation move to deflect and/or derail the subject.
 
digitusmedius said:
All that wasted effort and bafflegab effort just to deflect away from the fact that you totally flopped on the actual subject that started this conversation. Let's list the errors you made and still stand:

1. Confused "officers of the United States" in Art. II, sec. 2 and 3 with military officers (and you still seem to be confused).

2. First claimed POTUS only nominates officers above the rank of 07 (even though you yourself showed above that it's all officers 04 and above without apparently realizing and certainly not admitting that you were wrong.

3. Brought up the completely irrelevant and unrelated matter and singular case of a POTUS commissioning a civilian to the rank of during war time and even there muffed it by citing the wrong man.

This is typical for rightwingers who so often are out of their depth on a subject and so arrogant that they don't even pause to look anything up before launching what they think is going to be a "gotcha" comment, gets hoist on his own petard then throws all the garbage he can dredge up in a desperation move to deflect and/or derail the subject.
Click to expand...

Thank you for completely ignoring the citations of the actual laws of the United States of America in order to make your point.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Thank you for completely ignoring the citations of the actual laws of the United States of America in order to make your point.
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite. I reviewed the citations and they show, as I indicated, what a sloppy mess of errors in fact and obfuscation you've made of your case. I hardly expected you to admit to this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom