Pull The Trigger Already!

[BackAgain]

Full of shit huh?

Trump has deep state plants in the FBI that are creating false whistleblower claims to harm Biden.

Prove me wrong.


Another false equivalence.

"DOJ has maintained in numerous battles over executive privilege that it is the current president who holds the power to block officials from testifying.

But the filing also argues that such a privilege cannot be used as a blanket excuse to avoid all questions, noting the committee largely wished to speak with Navarro about “matters undertaken in his personal capacity with persons outside the government” rather than any conversations he may have had with Trump."

Executive privilege does not apply in a personal capacity.

You’re an idiot. Prove me wrong.

 

[Catsnmeters]

You’re an idiot. Prove me wrong.

Ah ha! So you do get my point.

Sure, I could roll around these forums and make outlandish claims and when backed into a corner blurt out "deep state" but I have integrity.

Certainly there is no point I can make where you can't fall back on deep state claims.

That kind of propaganda works in Russia and apparently it works in trump supporters too.

Good job.

 

[Nostra]

Full of shit huh?

Trump has deep state plants in the FBI that are creating false whistleblower claims to harm Biden.

Prove me wrong.


Another false equivalence.

"DOJ has maintained in numerous battles over executive privilege that it is the current president who holds the power to block officials from testifying.

But the filing also argues that such a privilege cannot be used as a blanket excuse to avoid all questions, noting the committee largely wished to speak with Navarro about “matters undertaken in his personal capacity with persons outside the government” rather than any conversations he may have had with Trump."

Executive privilege does not apply in a personal capacity.

Not up to others to prove you wrong, it’s on you to back up your bullshit lies.

GO!

 

[Catsnmeters]

Not up to others to prove you wrong, it’s on you to back up your bullshit lies.

GO!

I know. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Now you just need to relay this backagain.

 

[BackAgain]

Ah ha! So you do get my point.

If your point is that you’re an idiot, yes.

Sure, I could roll around these forums and make outlandish claims and when backed into a corner blurt out "deep state" but I have integrity.

Your false label about deep state is what’s outlandish. Just because you lack the ability to recognize that past administrations’ hirees are left over when a different administration takes over doesn’t mean that this phenomena doesn’t take place. Indeed, some old hirees gain seniority and management positions over time in places like Justice and State. If they get a direction they don’t like from a new administration of the opposing political party, so they always do as demanded of them? Is that your thinking? Or, do they drag their feet. And interpret old and new rules in a way to frustrate the objectives of the current administration?

And, of course, they’d be vocal enough about their counter-measures to satisfy you of this, right?

Certainly there is no point I can make where you can't fall back on deep state claims.

Yes, of course there is. But if you could do so without just denying that Deep State exists, you would. But you can’t. Your feeble ability to analyze begins and ends with simple denials.

That kind of propaganda works in Russia and apparently it works in trump supporters too.

Your false denial is the very essence of why deep state can do what it does. How many Presidents while IN office or later on in their public comments have expressed real frustration with the bureaucracy? What the fuck do you imagine they were talking about?

Good job.

Your efforts tend to suck.

Since the term “Deep State,” itself, is subject to alternative meanings and concerns, I will now be more precise in the way I intend that term to be understood, by quoting a snippet from Wikipedia:

During the presidency of Donald Trump, deep-state rhetoric has been used in the United States to describe the "permanent government" of entrenched career bureaucrats or civil servants acting in accordance with the mandate of their agency and congressional statutes, when seen as in conflict with the incumbent presidential administration.

Excerpt from wiki found at —Deep state - Wikipedia
Not necessarily you, catsandyards, but some people might find it informative to read things like:

Bureaucratic Resistance and the Deep State Myth

How to think — and not think — about the concept of a "Deep State" as the nation works through the Ukraine whistleblower developments.

www.justsecurity.org

And like:

The Deep State Is Real

But it might not be what you think.

www.politico.com

 

[Nostra]

You’re an idiot. Prove me wrong.

You are correct, Sir.

 

[Catsnmeters]

If your point is that you’re an idiot, yes.

Your false label about deep state is what’s outlandish. Just because you lack the ability to recognize that past administrations’ hirees are left over when a different administration takes over doesn’t mean that this phenomena doesn’t take place. Indeed, some old hirees gain seniority and management positions over time in places like Justice and State. If they get a direction they don’t like from a new administration of the opposing political party, so they always do as demanded of them? Is that your thinking? Or, do they drag their feet. And interpret old and new rules in a way to frustrate the objectives of the current administration?

If it's outlandish, then prove me wrong. That's how it you thought it worked when you claimed deep state a few posts ago.

And, of course, they’d be vocal enough about their counter-measures to satisfy you of this, right?

Yes, of course there is. But if you could do so without just denying that Deep State exists, you would. But you can’t. Your feeble ability to analyze begins and ends with simple denials.

Yep. You seem to think being unable to prove something false it must be true.

A first rate logical fallacy.

Your false denial is the very essence of why deep state can do what it does. How many Presidents while IN office or later on in their public comments have expressed real frustration with the bureaucracy? What the fuck do you imagine they were talking about?

Your efforts tend to suck.

More deep state claims. You win. I can t prove you wrong. Lol.

Since the term “Deep State,” itself, is subject to alternative meanings and concerns, I will now be more precise in the way I intend that term to be understood, by quoting a snippet from Wikipedia:

During the presidency of Donald Trump, deep-state rhetoric has been used in the United States to describe the "permanent government" of entrenched career bureaucrats or civil servants acting in accordance with the mandate of their agency and congressional statutes, when seen as in conflict with the incumbent presidential administration.

Excerpt from wiki found at —Deep state - Wikipedia
Not necessarily you, catsandyards, but some people might find it informative to read things like:

Bureaucratic Resistance and the Deep State Myth

How to think — and not think — about the concept of a "Deep State" as the nation works through the Ukraine whistleblower developments.

www.justsecurity.org

And like:

The Deep State Is Real

But it might not be what you think.

www.politico.com

Historically, I have been impressed with the site just security and your link is no exception. Great article.

It doesn't necessarily support your contention but it does offer some provocative insight into the "deep state" phenomena which to me is essentially a politically motivated nefarious rebranding of an unavoidable and perpetually occurring existence of any bureaucratic organization...yet as just security points out, their isn't any real power their.

"Career bureaucrats will ask questions, they may even write memos to the boss or to the file, a few (but note how very few!) brave souls may take advantageous of statutory means of disclosure of abuse to Congress, and some lone wolves may even leak information, thus multiplying their force but still leaving the ultimate power in the hands of the people. And, of course, some individuals may act corruptly, as human beings sometimes do in every profession. But career bureaucrats in the U.S. executive branch bureaucracy are neither sufficiently organized nor powerful nor constitutionally inclined to take over the reins of the state for themselves."

Above is from your link so I won't link it again.

So in essence, sure, you could say the deep state exists but that is only because your party has chosen to brand historically normal political actions as such.

 

[jc456]

The House holds the purse-strings.

Perhaps they should defund the State Department until compliance is achieved?

It’s what xiden just did to scotus

 

[jc456]

If it's outlandish, then prove me wrong. That's how it you thought it worked when you claimed deep state a few posts ago

Scotus threat, comply with demofks or no funding

 

[Catsnmeters]

Scotus threat, comply with demofks or no funding

You will have to elaborate.

 

[jc456]

You will have to elaborate.

 

[Dragonlady]

Blinken and the Biden administration continues to defy Congress by refusing to meet demands for documents. They are just daring the Republicans to do anything about it.


"The State Department missed a deadline again Monday to provide the House Foreign Affairs Committee with files related to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021.

The hard pass is the third time the department has ignored a set deadline by the committee."

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/afghanistan-mccaul-state-department/2023/05/02/id/1118331/

Gee what a shame. You didn't seem to have had any problem with the Trump State Department stonewalling Congress. I wasn't aware there were "hard deadlines" for information requested.

 

[Catsnmeters]

I'm at work so can't watch your video. I did glean your point from the title and looked up what was going on.

It doesn't seem that what Hawley says is actually accurate.

"The letter does not reference security funding. Instead, it suggests that the Senate withhold $10 million from the court’s budget in fiscal year 2024 unless the court adopts more stringent ethics standards.

Hawley, using the Supreme Court’s budget request, pieced together two budget increases requested by the judicial branch — $4 million for police pay in response to increased threats and $5.8 million to expand security by the Supreme Court Police.

“Our appropriations request was clearly not targeted at revoking the same security funding that all of the signers recently approved,” Whitehouse said in a statement, referencing a Democratic-supported provision last Congress that gave more money to the Supreme Court for security. “Meanwhile, House Republicans just passed a bill that would slash funding by at least 22 percent across the board, which could translate to $165 million in cuts to judicial security.”

Hawley claims Democrats are intimidating the Supreme Court with push for stricter ethics

“I don’t care what trips the justices take, I’ll leave that to them,” Hawley said when asked about a report that Justice Clarence Thomas accepted luxury trips from a Texas billionaire.

www.google.com

That said, what does this have to do with the supposed deep state?

Read backagain's definition of deep state. What you posted is out in the open, political discourse by those who are elected to do the same.

That is not what the deep means.

Lastly, I wouldn't create a thread regarding the video you posted. I don't think it will work out for you.

 

[BackAgain]

If it's outlandish, then prove me wrong. That's how it you thought it worked when you claimed deep state a few posts ago.



Yep. You seem to think being unable to prove something false it must be true.

A first rate logical fallacy.



More deep state claims. You win. I can t prove you wrong. Lol.


Historically, I have been impressed with the site just security and your link is no exception. Great article.

It doesn't necessarily support your contention but it does offer some provocative insight into the "deep state" phenomena which to me is essentially a politically motivated nefarious rebranding of an unavoidable and perpetually occurring existence of any bureaucratic organization...yet as just security points out, their isn't any real power their.

"Career bureaucrats will ask questions, they may even write memos to the boss or to the file, a few (but note how very few!) brave souls may take advantageous of statutory means of disclosure of abuse to Congress, and some lone wolves may even leak information, thus multiplying their force but still leaving the ultimate power in the hands of the people. And, of course, some individuals may act corruptly, as human beings sometimes do in every profession. But career bureaucrats in the U.S. executive branch bureaucracy are neither sufficiently organized nor powerful nor constitutionally inclined to take over the reins of the state for themselves."

Above is from your link so I won't link it again.

So in essence, sure, you could say the deep state exists but that is only because your party has chosen to brand historically normal political actions as such.

Translation from catsnmeter’s nonsensical rambling bologna into plain English: “Yes. BackAgain, you’re clearly right but I’m too cowardly to admit it.”

It’s ok. It’s understood. You’re a libtard. Explanation enough.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Translation from carsnmetwr’s nonsensical rambling bologna into plain English: Yes. BackAgain, you’re clearly right but I’m too cowardly to admit it.”

It’s ok. It’s understood. You’re a libtard. Explanation enough.

So you have no arguement. Just an ad hominem denial.

Been great discussing this with yah.

Have a great day.

 

[BackAgain]

So you have no arguement. Just an ad hominem denial.

Been great discussing this with yah.

Have a great day.

I was actually pointing out that it was you who had been engaging in fallacy and ad hominem. You offered no rebuttal of what I had said. You chose to ignore what you were unable to adequately respond to, much less rebut.

I accept the fact that you are uneducable.

Toddle off kid. Feel free to come back and try to engage when you think you have the gumption for it. Clearly, at the moment, you simply do not.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

Lol, what a retard! Hilarious There are 27 amendments to the Constitution there retard. Not billions. What a retard.

Well look at that............
My middle fingers got stiffies for you!!!!

 

[Oddball]

Send in the Marshals to seize the documents!!

6 AM raid, with weapons drawn!

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

Lol, what a retard! Hilarious There are 27 amendments to the Constitution there retard. Not billions. What a retard.

Another RETARD NAZICRAT that cannot READ, nor COMPREHEND the English language!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

6 AM raid, with weapons drawn!

With CNN cameras at the ready