A lot of negative posts against Trump dominate the discussion here

I would like to request the Forum administrator to read the rules about posting in the Marianas Variety. The rules are not burdensome but encourages posters to be honest and fair, etc. which make their posts easier to read or tolerate. A lot of post in this Forum are just anti-Trump; so we don't get to read other views about President Trump. I think if the Forum were to adopt guidelines similar to Marianas Variety, the quality of posts will improve. Right now it's dominated by few strongly opinionated people who cannot accept comments by others. Just my hope.

Comments

  • It seems there is no admin anymore or am I wrong?imageimage
  • As far as I know, Bull02, you are wrong. There is a Forum Administrator, who lives as far as I know in Hawai'i and whose work at times takes him/her to Pohnpei.

    As far as Marc's comments are concerned, there is no impediment as far as I can tell restricting his ability to point out errors, dishonesty, or unfairness in any thread or post in this Forum. If he is suggesting that posters should be nice to Trump, or should say things that Trumpists find tolerable, I would point out that it is Trump who motivates anti-Trump sentiment. Not only do those who participate in this Forum find his lies and slanders and falsehoods intolerable, a fairly significant portion of the world population does as well. Perhaps it would reduce the anti-Trump sentiment in this Forum if Trump were to simply stop lying, prevaricating, spreading disinformation and conspiracy theories, and get around to leading.

    If Marc wants to find a Forum more to his liking, I would suggest "Sic Semper Tyrranis," an online blog which is most definitely right wing, and also fairly intellectual.
  • Sarem, what's wrong with you? I did not say I am for Trump. I am just saying that several posters in this Forum do dominate the discussion; and some, you included, always say bad things about Trump. I don't care about your politics. But I was thinking that this Forum was meant to provide an opportunity for all views to be posted and discussed--encouraging examination of both sides of issues. Your posts are always mean and insensitive. You always attack, attack and demean other posters.
  • marc. I don't recall you complaining when Trumpsters like Reaper, Pawnstar, Rastaman, Anunaki, and others first started flooding this forum with Trumpaganda four years ago....and continuing it until now.

    When these Trumpsters were criticized by other members for posting too much about Trump, they screamed, "But freedom of speech!" As I recall, you defended them then. But now you want to restrict free speech that does not support Trump? SMH

    Double standard, my friend?

    You seem to only object to factual articles about Trump, most of which merely repeat Trump's words and report on his actions.

    So, your pretension to be neutral about Trump is disingenuous at best, deceitful at worst.

    In any case, if you want to see posts that are not about Trump, you are free to post them. I have started many threads that are about Micronesia only. Have you? How about starting now instead of just complaining?
  • Marc, you must assume that I am too old to remember anything. But I am not. I remember your posts over the past three to four years, before you took a hiatus, and while you may not agree with me, you are a Trumpist.

    And you have a history of telling me what I should do, or criticizing me for being anti-Trump, as if you are better than me.

    Think I am wrong, say so. I can take it. But don't deny you are a Trumpist. The history is right there, just like Trump's words on the recordings of Bob Woodward, where the president admitted that he lied about the coronavirus, as early as January, and by doing so may have hastened or worse caused the deaths of 100,000 or more innocent souls.

    Don't believe you are a Trumpist? Try this experiment. Click on the smiley-face at the left of your name. That will take you to your Profile page. On the right you will see two links, entitled "Discussions" and "Comments." Browse through them. How many of those that make reference to Trump at all are critical of the president?

    Your posts are full of "other views of Trump," positive ones. Where did you go? Why did you stop defending him? If this forum is too "anti-Trump" isn't that because his defenders in here have split the scene. As FM says, you had no complaints about Reaper, and PornStar, and Rastaman, and Anunaki, and Iron Youth while he or she was a Trumpist. You knew they were spreading falsehoods and disinformation, and made no complaints.

    Don't forget, because I won't, that the first pro-Trump anti-Democratic post in this Forum occurred on or about November 16, 2016, posted by PawNStaR. Look it up. He has a profile page also, with all of his discussion threads. See who turned this Forum into a Trump party!

    I don't know where they went, but I don't miss them one bit. You want to say nice things about Trump in here, feel free. Just make them truthful and honest statements.

    I didn't start it, the Trumpists did. But don't criticize me for being against a con man, cheat, philanderer, liar, propagandist and would be autocrat.

    If you think I have been dishonest about anything I have said in here, point it out. Otherwise, as Michelle Obama said, "It is what it is."
  • Sarem get that white privilege we all been hearing about on CNN
  • FM and SC, it seems you've taken on upon yourself the role of commenting on anything and everything that posters put up in this Forum. I say, you don't have to comment on everything that you read here. Allow people's post to be read by others; rather than you trying to interject your thoughts and interpretation of what are being posted in this Forum. It's like as if you feel obligated to correct people; by telling them that their posts are wrong; that you have better ideas.

    I must say that I've enjoyed reading your posts of the past; but now, the tone of your posts is one of scolding, of putting down people's opinion; of politicizing everything that are posted in this Forum.

    My personal preference is for discussions that focus on ideas and theories and projections and learning from histories, etc. I don't like this attack on people; I don't like reading your gossips. I am looking forward to your style of posts in the past. You accuse me of being a Trump supporter. Well, I don't know the other posters but for me, I don't know Trump and I don't vote. But when I agree with government policies and positions that are taken by the Trump administration, I would like to be able to say so without being labeled as Trumpist or worse.

    In short, let's discuss ideas, not personality, not broadcasting news of the day since we can get these from the different news outlet. I predict that you will be upset by this post; and will say a lot things negative; so I won't be reading this Forum for a couple of weeks.
  • Somehow I feel like I am being scolded.
  • Yes, Sarem Chuuk. Shame on us for exercising our freedom of speech right to criticize President Climate Change Denier and his fervent fans.

    Now we have hurt marc's feelings and he will be pouting for a couple of weeks. Such mean people we are!

    LOL
  • So im the bad guy when my opinion differ from those who advocate what was shown to be a failure in the USSR. Anyways. Socialism is not the way. Its the old way's with a new name.
  • Socialism? Only Trump is talking about socialism.

    FYI, Joe Biden is a lifelong liberal. He is definitely not a socialist, no matter what the Liar-in-Chief claims.
  • FM, you see? Your post above just proves what I am saying. Your read "socialism" and your reaction is to say bad things about Trump and good things about Biden. Why don't you focus on discussing the idea of socialism--why it is good or bad. Don't bring your anti-Trump bias or pro-Biden bias into the discussion. If you cannot help yourself, then, I guess there is nothing else to discuss as far as I am concerned. I don't care about your politics. But I wish I could read a good discussion about socialism or socialists.
  • Here’s a suggestion. If you want to read a good discussion about socialists, write one, and stop complaining.
  • First of all, marc, Reaper introduced the word 'socialism' into this thread. I did not. I only responded to his post.

    In case you haven't noticed from his hundreds of posts over the past years, Reaper is a HUGE Trump supporter who falsely and maliciously labels Joe Biden a 'socialist."

    So why don't you complain to Reaper? Could it be because, like him, you too support Trump? LOL
  • FM, so as you say Reaper had said a lot about Socialism in the past; and that he is a Trump supporter. So, if he had said all of those in the past, then, that was then; and this is now. His post above mentions nothing about Trump. So I don't understand why you need to say these things. Focus on his post for what it says today; now what he said in the past. Now that I have responded to FM, I expect the other part of the tag team, SC, to respond in defense of FM.
  • I'm still waiting for you to write something enlightening and educational about socialism. FM can defend him/herself just fine. Stop your whining and say something intelligent.
  • edited September 19
    You know you are a socialist when your only rebuttal is trump bad biden good. The democrat party is now being driven by the ideology of Karl Marx.

    Ginsberg has kicked the bucket. She gone. 3rd pick for Scotus for trump coming. Socialism will never take hold now that Ginsberg is dead. The supreme court will follow the democracy and the constitution for the next 30 to 40 years.
  • Now Democrat's want to change the life appointment of the supreme court judges to 18 years instead of life long appointments.
  • This proves only one thing. That some Democrats aren't very smart. Anyone who has read the Constitution knows that Article III Judges, foremost among them Supreme Court Justices, "shall hold their offices during good behavior." Thus there are only a few ways to remove a Supreme Court Justice (or any other Article III judge) once appointed. If the judge dies, or if the judge retires, or if the judge demonstrates other than "good behavior" while in office, and the bad behavior is linked to his or her judicial office, resulting in impeachment. And of course impeachment would require a 2/3 vote of all Senators, something not very likely ever again.

    Terms limits on judges would require a Constitutional amendment, something that probably cannot ever happen again in the United States. I would wager that every Democrat who supports the introduction of term limits legislation for judges knows this (because they actually are very smart), and that this is just a political stunt.

    BTW, although a Constitutional amendment would be required to impose term limits on Supreme Court Justices, the same cannot be said definitively about other members of the Article III Judiciary.

    Article III, Section 1 provides that the Judicial power of the US resides in the Supreme Court, and "in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Since Congress is afforded the power to create lower courts, such as federal district courts, bankruptcy courts, and Courts of Appeal, an argument could be made that Congress, in creating those courts, could impose term limits upon them.

    What the Constitution makes clear by omission, as well, is that there is no Constitutional limit on the number of Supreme Court Justices. The Constitution is absolutely silent on how many Justices are necessary to make up a Supreme Court, and only gives to the president the power to appoint Supreme Court justices, with the advice and consent of the Senate. See Article II, Section 2, Cl. 2.

    So, if the Democrats were to win the presidency, and flip enough Senate seats to take control of the Senate (if they win the White House, they would need to flip a net of three Senate seats, since the Vice President could break any tie), then president Biden could nominate four new extremely liberal Justices to the Supreme Court, and the new, Democratic Senate could confirm them (ram them through, just like the Republicans have done and will do next month) to restore a liberal balance to the Court.

    Karma is a bitch.
  • Justin Ginsburg said it was a bad idea to expand the number of supreme court justice beyond 9. Yup you democrats have completely embrace socialism.
  • Who the hell is Justin Ginsburg, fool, and what does he have to do with anything?

    What a fucking idiot.
  • edited September 27
    I believe this is what rasta is talking about

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she opposes proposals from 2020 Democrats to expand the Supreme Court
    PUBLISHED WED, JUL 24 2019 8:52 AM EDT
    UPDATED WED, JUL 24 2019 10:46 AM EDT
    Tucker Higgins
    @TUCKERHIGGINS
    @IN/TUCKER-HIGGINS-5B162295/
    SHARE
    KEY POINTS
    Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposes proposals floated by Democratic presidential candidates to increase the number of justices on the top court.
    She says any such plan would make the court look partisan.
    "It would be that — one side saying, 'When we're in power, we're going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to,'" Ginsburg tells NPR.


    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/24/ruth-bader-ginsburg-says-she-opposes-expanding-the-supreme-court.html
  • Democrats know they can't win the silent majority of America who opposes socialism so what democrat's do? Try to spy on trump and impeached him and now loading the courts. That's what socialists do.
Sign In or Register to comment.