TRUMP 2024

593,703 Views | 7039 Replies | Last: 2 hrs ago by packgrad
SmaptyWolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldsouljer • 8:12p, 12/20/23
Oldsouljer said:
jkpackfan said:
It's pretty simple, Trump has been found guilty of nothing and this should and will be overturned by the Supreme Court. Just like everything else the idiot libs have tried this is one million percent political. This election should be decided by the voters and not by these clown judges.

This will be overturned and once it is these same idiots are gonna say the Supreme Court is illegitimate, just watch.

I'm shocked that anyone (outside the far left loons) would cheer on this decision.

Finally, this is only gonna help Trump, good job morons.
I'm more concerned with what this does to the nation than its impact on Trump. I feel that these actions, unthinkable in the past, are pushing us towards a Fort Sumter moment.

I declaya! Being held accountable for trying to stay in office after you lost is unthinkable! Why won't these Libruls think about the good of the nation?! Beauregard, get me mah smelling salts!
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Werewolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SmaptyWolf • 8:34p, 12/20/23
THis month's jab also includes DNA that will fine tune your spelling. Take it.......and the sooner the better. Offering a serving a french fries over the holiday season with each one administered.
Reply Quote
1
Werewolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DrummerboyWolf • 8:41p, 12/20/23
DrummerboyWolf said:
hokiewolf said:
DrummerboyWolf said:
hokiewolf said:
DrummerboyWolf said:
hokiewolf said:
caryking said:
Well, Colorado acted…
Or the Constitution, specifically section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that the conduct that Trump acted post the 2020 election was anti-democratic and therefore the results of that anti-democratic conduct satisfies Section 3 that results in disqualification.

Do stupid things, win stupid prizes.
Make stupid statements and keep believing the main stream media. You sir are not a conservative in my opinion.
neither is Trump but you love him. Where's my love fam?
I was not a Trump guy in 2016 and did not vote for him. I did not vote for the ***** either.

He is not a conservative, but he did more for the United States than any other President in my lifetime except for Reagan. He made us energy independent. He tried to break the continuing resolution saga Congress has embraced by having a shutdown. The economy under him was probably the best it's ever been with very low inflation. He did this although the Republican majority in the House fought him the whole way because they believed the Russian Collusion Bull ***** Not a bit of it true. Also had a hostile media against him the whole time. Take into account that the 2020 election was stolen(I know you won't admit it but the evidence is there) he probably would have disabled the Deep State considerably. But because stolen elections have consequences, we are suffering probably the worst time ever in the U.S. during my lifetime.

As I said, Trump is not Conservative, but his policies were Conservative. But I guess you like a weaponized Federal Government going after Patriots for just practicing their First Amendment rights. Going after the leading Presidential candidate in the opposite party with more Bull **** lawsuits. The border is a mess but you are worried that Trump committed an Insurrection when he did not.

I'd like to understand where negative interest rates, trillions of dollars of deficits, and unlimited budget increases in each category falls within the structure of Conservative policies
That is all on the Congress not Trump, but have it. He can propose a budget, but it's the House and the Congress that control the spending. You are just blind to the facts. We have the FBI, DOJ, and several other agencies trying to silence Americans, spying on them illegally, charging them for practicing their First Amendment rights to redress their government and on and on. You seem completely happy with those things happening, but you claim you want to follow the Constitution. How is that working out for the American People.

We are not going to agree. Trump has his faults, but the mess we are in is due mainly to the Deep State and UNELECTED bureaucrats making laws without passing it through Congress. You think Trump is bad but you don't see the corruption throughout.

Respond if you want. I will not read it. I am putting you on ignore and I suggest you do the same with me.

GOOD DAY!
It really has come to this. If you know, you know. Why waste your time........the Sieve is truly the sieve....he only separates what he wants to hear.
Reply Quote
1
Werewolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:53p, 12/20/23
Several thousand domestic terrorists in RENO, Nevada last night! #MAGA
Reply Quote
Werewolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:56p, 12/20/23
By Christmas 2024 Trump says the country will be thriving once again. How's that gonna happen? ;-)


Sieve says "Biden has the country thriving right now"...........delusional, utterly gaslighted....and hopelessly to boot.

Reply Quote
Werewolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:57p, 12/20/23
Domestic terrorists lined up down the street.
Reply Quote
Werewolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:00p, 12/20/23
Some of you I don't care to convince.....you're hopeless. Trust your eyes. Polls are bull*****.......gaslighting you 100% of the time.

Reply Quote
Civilized
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Werewolf • 10:08p, 12/20/23
So we shouldn't trust the polls that are currently accurately indicating Trump is winning?

I'm totally confused.
Reply Quote
3
Werewolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Civilized • 10:18p, 12/20/23
Sieve, you've been confused since your 1st or 2nd day of high school. You just haven't figured out that you're confused. You're a product of our education system and our entertainment industry......and I'm sorry about that because it truly isn't your fault completely.
Reply Quote
1
Oldsouljer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Civilized • 7:12a, 12/21/23
Civilized said:
So we shouldn't trust the polls that are currently accurately indicating Trump is winning?

I'm totally confused.
I agree. Polls are polls and that's it. That said, I don't think it's a matter of Trump winning, but Biden is losing the country.
Reply Quote
1
hokiewolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldsouljer • 10:27a, 12/21/23
Oldsouljer said:
jkpackfan said:
It's pretty simple, Trump has been found guilty of nothing and this should and will be overturned by the Supreme Court. Just like everything else the idiot libs have tried this is one million percent political. This election should be decided by the voters and not by these clown judges.

This will be overturned and once it is these same idiots are gonna say the Supreme Court is illegitimate, just watch.

I'm shocked that anyone (outside the far left loons) would cheer on this decision.

Finally, this is only gonna help Trump, good job morons.
I'm more concerned with what this does to the nation than its impact on Trump. I feel that these actions, unthinkable in the past, are pushing us towards a Fort Sumter moment.
So the solution is to back a candidate who wants to rule as an Autocrat?
Originator of the Tony Adams Scale
Reply Quote
3
packgrad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:44a, 12/21/23
Here's a link for the TDS crowd.

https://www.storyarts.org/library/aesops/stories/boy.html

Autocrat lol.
Reply Quote
1
hokiewolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to packgrad • 11:53a, 12/21/23
packgrad said:
Here's a link for the TDS crowd.

https://www.storyarts.org/library/aesops/stories/boy.html

Autocrat lol.
When you surround yourself with sycophants who "know what time it is" , and those individuals are openly saying plainly that "America needs a dictator", I don't think you're giving that the weight is deserves.

All of Trumps great accomplishments - tax cuts, judicial appointments, military and diplomatic appointments - were achieved thanks to serious work of folks like Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, John Kelly, William Barr, Pat Cipollone, John Bolton, Mike Pence, Mark Miley, etc.

Guess what? Trump and him minions hate all of those people now. Therefore none of these types will be in his second administration and in fact he would like them purged from the GOP and in some cases put on trial for treason. Heck, he called Chip Roy a RINO! Trump now hates Roy because he endorsed DeSantis, that's the only reason he gave for Roy being a RINO. Do you think Chip Roy is RINO packgrad? Because I don't.

So RINO is now just a label for folks who are disloyal to Trump. So I guess that makes me a RINO too. This blase approach to Trump saying he wants to rule like a dictator instead of represent the United States like an elected President is dangerous, and I do not understand why you don't even try to recognize the anti-constitutional and anti-conservative agenda for the potential Republican Presidential nominee.

Trump clearly wants to be an autocrat. He has continually praised autocrats in other countries from Viktor Orban to Kim Jong Un. It's a well established fact. He's been asked about it and confirmed it. It's not TDS, its his own words and communication! When you call your political enemies "vermin" and use language that undocumented immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country" dehumanizes these people which is what fascists regimes in the past used to bring themselves to power.

So do I think Trump is Hitler or Mussolini? No. But looking at his second term agenda being discussed by his cronies in his campaign and discussed by people like Steve Bannon and Alex jones and Tucker Carlson would upend the norms of government. And I'm sorry, that's just not acceptable to me as the Republican nominee for President of the United States. That is some **** that usually comes from the Far Left. It's now coming from the Far Right and cloaked in patriotism and isolationism and you guys are just eating it up.

Does Trump want to be Hitler? Naw, Mussolini? Maybe. Huey Long? Most likely. packgrad, I encourage you to do some reading on Huey Long and then ask yourself where is the difference between he and Trump.

My basic view pre Trump is that it was very difficult for either an ignoramus or an evil genius to become President. This tilt to weaking of the political parties and politics as entertainment rather than electing competent people who actually want to do the tough work of running the government is what should be concerning to everyone on this board. We are working our way into electing ingoramuses and evil geniuses in the Republican party.

Why is Trumps language so dangerous? Because it serves to acclimatize his fans, many on this board to be comfortable with the idea of him being a dictator. Its already been used successfully in the past, as there are numerous threads excusing the many things that Trump did at the end of his first term that should have disqualified him in the mind of center to right wing minded folks to run for President ever again.

  • Crowds chanting "Hang Mike Pence" are excused because they had good reason to be angry at Mike Pence to want to, you know, hang him.
  • Banging porn stars
  • Mishandling classified information
  • Calling for the termination of the Constitution
Trump has convinced his supporters to change how they think about morality, national security, and the Constitution in the party that professed bedrock commitment to morality, national security, and the Constitution. That is what troubles me. That isn't TDS, that's listening to what Trump is saying in his speeches and taking him for his word that this is what he wants to do. It is sad that you and others on this board take no time answering any of these questions to convince me that I'm wrong, you just dismiss it as if I'm the problem.
Originator of the Tony Adams Scale
Reply Quote
5
packgrad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to hokiewolf • 12:21p, 12/21/23
"It is sad that you and others on this board take no time answering any of these questions to convince me that I'm wrong, you just dismiss it as if I'm the problem."

Why aren't you the problem? You brazenly label Trump supporters as brainwashed minions. Somehow to you that is less dehumanizing than Trump's words about illegal aliens. How are you different from the left? You basically spout off their exact talking points. This bull**** about being an autocrat is tired and is simply an argument for the uneducated.

Why is yours and the left's language about Trump and Trump supporters not dangerous? Do you think only the holy hokie and MSM purveyors speaketh the truth? I think you and the left have cried wolf about Trump so much there is no reason to even acknowledge your complaints anymore. They haven't changed in 8 years. Same tired schtick.

I am voting for whoever wins the Republican nomination. As a republican/conservative, I think any of the Republican options currently available are FAR superior to another term of Biden, Kamala, or Newsome. Obviously you are more than happy to have a democrat in office again to continue their move to socialism. I think most conservatives would agree that any realisitic current Republican nominee is better than the alternative, but some would rather sink the ship than have Trump. So yeah, TDS.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Oldsouljer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to hokiewolf • 9:51p, 12/21/23
hokiewolf said:
Oldsouljer said:
jkpackfan said:
It's pretty simple, Trump has been found guilty of nothing and this should and will be overturned by the Supreme Court. Just like everything else the idiot libs have tried this is one million percent political. This election should be decided by the voters and not by these clown judges.

This will be overturned and once it is these same idiots are gonna say the Supreme Court is illegitimate, just watch.

I'm shocked that anyone (outside the far left loons) would cheer on this decision.

Finally, this is only gonna help Trump, good job morons.
I'm more concerned with what this does to the nation than its impact on Trump. I feel that these actions, unthinkable in the past, are pushing us towards a Fort Sumter moment.
So the solution is to back a candidate who wants to rule as an Autocrat?
If you're talking about Trump, I don't accept the premise. I've never heard him say anything to suggest that. It's not Trump who had sent federal agents to harass parents of school children. It's not Trump who has pursued ridiculous charges based on things that never happened against a former President. That said, I'm not suggesting backing him. I'm just making an observation on where the country appears to be heading.
Reply Quote
4
Civilized
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:44a, 12/24/23
"The Constitution establishes a powerful structural check to prevent political factions from abusing the formidable threat of criminal prosecution to disable the President and attack their political enemies," Trump's attorneys wrote Saturday.

"Before any single prosecutor can ask a court to sit in judgment of the President's conduct, Congress must have approved of it by impeaching and convicting the President," they wrote. "That did not happen here, and so President Trump has absolute immunity."

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/23/politics/trump-election-subversion-criminal-case/index.html

So in other words, to avoid the prospect of a partisan prosecutor attempting to charge a President with crimes they and a randomly selected Grand Jury believe he may have committed, we should rely on the even more politically partisan and non-judicial process of impeachment as a gatekeeper to Presidential legal judgment instead?

Interesting mental gymnastics there.

They go on that Trump's indictment "threatens to launch cycles of recrimination and politically motivated prosecution that will plague our Nation for many decades to come."

I'll take my chances with this too. The right is saying stuff like this as if there's not legally significant evidence against Trump, which is a pre-req for being able to obtain an indictment and move forward with charges.

Moving forward, more politically motivated prosecutions may be attempted but good luck getting those to trial without evidence. It's the reason why you aren't hearing jack about pursuing Biden anymore. Decision-makers know they'd look like idiots pursuing that without good evidence and they haven't found any.

If and when they do, they'll move forward, and they should. Both parties should go where the evidence leads even if it's the adversarial party that always ends up pursuing the charges. If there is evidence there I don't care which side pursues it, and if there's not evidence I'm confident neither side will.

The prospect of politically motivated prosecutions that will be held in check and vetted by the evidentiary requirements and appeal process of the bipartisan judicial system should be a lot less alarming than a President being able to operate with impunity and then hide behind his party and not be pursued criminally for criminal acts just because the Senate majority party protected him from impeachment.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
caryking
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Civilized • 12:25p, 12/24/23
Civilized said:
"The Constitution establishes a powerful structural check to prevent political factions from abusing the formidable threat of criminal prosecution to disable the President and attack their political enemies," Trump's attorneys wrote Saturday.

"Before any single prosecutor can ask a court to sit in judgment of the President's conduct, Congress must have approved of it by impeaching and convicting the President," they wrote. "That did not happen here, and so President Trump has absolute immunity."

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/23/politics/trump-election-subversion-criminal-case/index.html

So in other words, to avoid the prospect of a partisan prosecutor attempting to charge a President with crimes they and a randomly selected Grand Jury believe he may have committed, we should rely on the even more politically partisan and non-judicial process of impeachment as a gatekeeper to Presidential legal judgment instead?

Interesting mental gymnastics there.

They go on that Trump's indictment "threatens to launch cycles of recrimination and politically motivated prosecution that will plague our Nation for many decades to come."

I'll take my chances with this too. The right is saying stuff like this as if there's not significant legally significant evidence against Trump, which is a pre-req for being able to obtain an indictment and move forward with charges.

Moving forward, more politically motivated prosecutions may be attempted but good luck getting those to trial without evidence. It's the reason why you aren't hearing jack about pursuing Biden anymore. Decision-makers know they'd look like idiots pursuing that without good evidence and they haven't found any.

If and when they do, they'll move forward, and they should. Both parties should go where the evidence leads even if it's the adversarial party that always ends up pursuing the charges. If there is evidence there I don't care which side pursues it, and if there's not evidence I'm confident neither side will.

The prospect of politically motivated prosecutions that will be held in check and vetted by the evidentiary requirements and appeal process of the bipartisan judicial system should be a lot less alarming than a President being able to hide behind his party and not be pursued criminally for criminal acts just because the Senate majority party protected him from impeachment.
I think I said the same thing (bolded) a couple of weeks ago…
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…

“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”

Joe Biden
Reply Quote
SmaptyWolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to caryking • 1:05p, 12/24/23
caryking said:
Civilized said:
"The Constitution establishes a powerful structural check to prevent political factions from abusing the formidable threat of criminal prosecution to disable the President and attack their political enemies," Trump's attorneys wrote Saturday.

"Before any single prosecutor can ask a court to sit in judgment of the President's conduct, Congress must have approved of it by impeaching and convicting the President," they wrote. "That did not happen here, and so President Trump has absolute immunity."

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/23/politics/trump-election-subversion-criminal-case/index.html

So in other words, to avoid the prospect of a partisan prosecutor attempting to charge a President with crimes they and a randomly selected Grand Jury believe he may have committed, we should rely on the even more politically partisan and non-judicial process of impeachment as a gatekeeper to Presidential legal judgment instead?

Interesting mental gymnastics there.

They go on that Trump's indictment "threatens to launch cycles of recrimination and politically motivated prosecution that will plague our Nation for many decades to come."

I'll take my chances with this too. The right is saying stuff like this as if there's not significant legally significant evidence against Trump, which is a pre-req for being able to obtain an indictment and move forward with charges.

Moving forward, more politically motivated prosecutions may be attempted but good luck getting those to trial without evidence. It's the reason why you aren't hearing jack about pursuing Biden anymore. Decision-makers know they'd look like idiots pursuing that without good evidence and they haven't found any.

If and when they do, they'll move forward, and they should. Both parties should go where the evidence leads even if it's the adversarial party that always ends up pursuing the charges. If there is evidence there I don't care which side pursues it, and if there's not evidence I'm confident neither side will.

The prospect of politically motivated prosecutions that will be held in check and vetted by the evidentiary requirements and appeal process of the bipartisan judicial system should be a lot less alarming than a President being able to hide behind his party and not be pursued criminally for criminal acts just because the Senate majority party protected him from impeachment.
I think I said the same thing (bolded) a couple of weeks ago…

Yes, and it was un-American BS then, too.

Think about how outraged you guys are now... and that's over a bunch of crap you've largely made up yourselves. Now imagine there was an actual lawless Dem president, doing a bunch of illegal things to keep himself in power, and a congress who was politically motivated to look the other way, and a bunch of voters who could care less as long as their side is in power?

You really want that country, where there really is no rule of law, just might makes right? Because up until now the left really has been trying to hold democratic norms and the rule of law together. But go ahead and convince them that that's the game we're playing now... I suspect you won't enjoy being on the losing end of that.
Reply Quote
4
2 edits
Werewolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Civilized • 7:00p, 12/24/23
The Sieve referencing the Constitution.....haha

I guess stranger things havr happened.....
Reply Quote
1
Oldsouljer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:03a, 12/25/23
MAGA Christmas!
Reply Quote
6
SmaptyWolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldsouljer • 12:53p, 12/25/23
Oldsouljer said:
MAGA Christmas!

Did Santa bring you a new paintball gun so you can cosplay Civil War 2 with Werewolf?
Reply Quote
5
Werewolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:17p, 12/27/23
nicaraguan-style political tactics.....looks like Michigan corruption may have failed.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/12/27/donald-trump-stay-ballot-after-michigan-supreme-court-rejects-appeal-procedural-grounds/
Reply Quote
1 edit
Werewolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:20p, 12/27/23
And just like that snap ! the news about the Colorado Supreme Court's droll action against candidate DJ Trump vanished from the front page (or top screens) of The New York Times. Do you know why? I'll tell you: Because the political Left has finally managed to embarrass itself with a "lawfare" gambit so nakedly fatuous that it exposes the faction's drive to destroy the election process, and with it our country.

https://kunstler.com/cluster****-nation/whatever-it-takes-wont-be-enough/
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Werewolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:06p, 12/27/23
Reply Quote
packgrad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:05a, 12/29/23
Fascists.

Reply Quote
3
hokiewolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to packgrad • 9:26a, 12/29/23
Yeah, the more I've read about the Colorado decision, the more I disagree with that one. This is just an egregious overreach by this person. She should not be using her office for partisan political decisions like that. It's setting an incredibly dangerous precedent.
Originator of the Tony Adams Scale
Reply Quote
1
Civilized
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to hokiewolf • 1:11p, 12/29/23
hokiewolf said:
Yeah, the more I've read about the Colorado decision, the more I disagree with that one. This is just an egregious overreach by this person. She should not be using her office for partisan political decisions like that. It's setting an incredibly dangerous precedent.

There was a good CNN opinion piece about this this morning that I agree with.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/opinions/colorado-removes-trump-from-ballot-linker/index.html

Trump needs to be on the ballot and if he's going to get beat, beat him at the ballot box.
Reply Quote
SmaptyWolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Civilized • 3:20p, 12/29/23
Civilized said:
hokiewolf said:
Yeah, the more I've read about the Colorado decision, the more I disagree with that one. This is just an egregious overreach by this person. She should not be using her office for partisan political decisions like that. It's setting an incredibly dangerous precedent.

There was a good CNN opinion piece about this this morning that I agree with.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/opinions/colorado-removes-trump-from-ballot-linker/index.html

Trump needs to be on the ballot and if he's going to get beat, beat him at the ballot box.

That's kinda the point. They've made it impossible for Trump to be beaten at the ballot box. If Trump loses the next election, will any conservative in the Water Cooler or nationwide respect the result? Of course not, it's simply not a possible outcome for them. Trump and the conservative establishment have moved them beyond democracy, so worrying about how they might react to this or that is a pointless exercise. Screw them.
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
Oldsouljer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to hokiewolf • 4:43p, 12/29/23
hokiewolf said:
Yeah, the more I've read about the Colorado decision, the more I disagree with that one. This is just an egregious overreach by this person. She should not be using her office for partisan political decisions like that. It's setting an incredibly dangerous precedent.
It's worth discussing the precise nature of that danger. The 2020 shenanigans deniers notwithstanding, a repeat of that election could all too easily fuel secessionist tendencies throughout the country, and nowhere are they stronger than in Texas, the tenth largest economy in the world.
Reply Quote
hokiewolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldsouljer • 5:03p, 12/29/23
Oldsouljer said:
hokiewolf said:
Yeah, the more I've read about the Colorado decision, the more I disagree with that one. This is just an egregious overreach by this person. She should not be using her office for partisan political decisions like that. It's setting an incredibly dangerous precedent.
It's worth discussing the precise nature of that danger. The 2020 shenanigans deniers notwithstanding, a repeat of that election could all too easily fuel secessionist tendencies throughout the country, and nowhere are they stronger than in Texas, the tenth largest economy in the world.
yeah, that fever dream ain't happening. But creating confusion for a 2024 election that will already be problematic is a turrible strategy whether you are far left or far right.
Originator of the Tony Adams Scale
Reply Quote
2
FlossyDFlynt
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to hokiewolf • 5:12p, 12/29/23
hokiewolf said:
Oldsouljer said:
hokiewolf said:
Yeah, the more I've read about the Colorado decision, the more I disagree with that one. This is just an egregious overreach by this person. She should not be using her office for partisan political decisions like that. It's setting an incredibly dangerous precedent.
It's worth discussing the precise nature of that danger. The 2020 shenanigans deniers notwithstanding, a repeat of that election could all too easily fuel secessionist tendencies throughout the country, and nowhere are they stronger than in Texas, the tenth largest economy in the world.
yeah, that fever dream ain't happening. But creating confusion for a 2024 election that will already be problematic is a turrible strategy whether you are far left or far right.
I agree with this take. The secession/civil war talk is just straight nonsense. Hell, just ask Britain how its going post Brexit and they were way better prepared for that type of scenario than any single state in the US
Reply Quote
1 edit
Oldsouljer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FlossyDFlynt • 5:38p, 12/29/23
FlossyDFlynt said:
hokiewolf said:
Oldsouljer said:
hokiewolf said:
Yeah, the more I've read about the Colorado decision, the more I disagree with that one. This is just an egregious overreach by this person. She should not be using her office for partisan political decisions like that. It's setting an incredibly dangerous precedent.
It's worth discussing the precise nature of that danger. The 2020 shenanigans deniers notwithstanding, a repeat of that election could all too easily fuel secessionist tendencies throughout the country, and nowhere are they stronger than in Texas, the tenth largest economy in the world.
yeah, that fever dream ain't happening. But creating confusion for a 2024 election that will already be problematic is a turrible strategy whether you are far left or far right.
I agree with this take. The secession/civil war talk is just straight nonsense. Hell, just ask Britain how its going post Brexit and they were way better prepared for that type of scenario than any single state in the US
It's been nonsense. Past tense. Things are changing. We shouldn't have millions of aliens invading but we do. We shouldn't have 33 trillion in debt and rising but we do. Sovereign debt crises loom. Crime is sky rocketing to levels heretofore not seen. Global alliances are shifting, and enemies of this country are in high gear working to undermine us in a myriad of ways, particularly with the ditching of the petrodollar. Blue states are going hard in one direction, red in the other. If you think a national disintegration scenario is totally implausible, the floor is yours, make your case.
Reply Quote
3
Kgar2121
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldsouljer • 6:30p, 12/29/23
Oldsouljer said:
FlossyDFlynt said:
hokiewolf said:
Oldsouljer said:
hokiewolf said:
Yeah, the more I've read about the Colorado decision, the more I disagree with that one. This is just an egregious overreach by this person. She should not be using her office for partisan political decisions like that. It's setting an incredibly dangerous precedent.
It's worth discussing the precise nature of that danger. The 2020 shenanigans deniers notwithstanding, a repeat of that election could all too easily fuel secessionist tendencies throughout the country, and nowhere are they stronger than in Texas, the tenth largest economy in the world.
yeah, that fever dream ain't happening. But creating confusion for a 2024 election that will already be problematic is a turrible strategy whether you are far left or far right.
I agree with this take. The secession/civil war talk is just straight nonsense. Hell, just ask Britain how its going post Brexit and they were way better prepared for that type of scenario than any single state in the US
It's been nonsense. Past tense. Things are changing. We shouldn't have millions of aliens invading but we do. We shouldn't have 33 trillion in debt and rising but we do. Sovereign debt crises loom. Crime is sky rocketing to levels heretofore not seen. Global alliances are shifting, and enemies of this country are in high gear working to undermine us in a myriad of ways, particularly with the ditching of the petrodollar. Blue states are going hard in one direction, red in the other. If you think a national disintegration scenario is totally implausible, the floor is yours, make your case.
As horrible as it is, I think this is where the country is. And the fact that such a large portion of the country doesn't seem to see it is the most disheartening part of it
Reply Quote
SmaptyWolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Kgar2121 • 7:54p, 12/29/23
Kgar2121 said:
Oldsouljer said:
FlossyDFlynt said:
hokiewolf said:
Oldsouljer said:
hokiewolf said:
Yeah, the more I've read about the Colorado decision, the more I disagree with that one. This is just an egregious overreach by this person. She should not be using her office for partisan political decisions like that. It's setting an incredibly dangerous precedent.
It's worth discussing the precise nature of that danger. The 2020 shenanigans deniers notwithstanding, a repeat of that election could all too easily fuel secessionist tendencies throughout the country, and nowhere are they stronger than in Texas, the tenth largest economy in the world.
yeah, that fever dream ain't happening. But creating confusion for a 2024 election that will already be problematic is a turrible strategy whether you are far left or far right.
I agree with this take. The secession/civil war talk is just straight nonsense. Hell, just ask Britain how its going post Brexit and they were way better prepared for that type of scenario than any single state in the US
It's been nonsense. Past tense. Things are changing. We shouldn't have millions of aliens invading but we do. We shouldn't have 33 trillion in debt and rising but we do. Sovereign debt crises loom. Crime is sky rocketing to levels heretofore not seen. Global alliances are shifting, and enemies of this country are in high gear working to undermine us in a myriad of ways, particularly with the ditching of the petrodollar. Blue states are going hard in one direction, red in the other. If you think a national disintegration scenario is totally implausible, the floor is yours, make your case.
As horrible as it is, I think this is where the country is. And the fact that such a large portion of the country doesn't seem to see it is the most disheartening part of it

A large portion of the country is rolling their eyes because you guys are perpetually outraged over increasingly ridiculous made up crap. A few thoughts:
  • The illegal immigrant population has been flat for decades. Legal immigration (a.k.a. not invaders) has skyrocketed. If House Republicans weren't so nuts we could pass laws to fix that.
  • No sane economist thinks there's a sovereign debt crises looming. Assuming interest rates keep falling our current debt is completely fine. And strangely we didn't hear a peep about this while Trump was piling on debt to cut rich guys' taxes.
  • There was a brief bump in crime during the pandemic that has since come back down, but regardless crime has been steadily plummeting nationwide since the 1990s. The opposite of a skyrocketing crises.
  • The only shifting global alliance that should concern us is conservative Americans' recent infatuation with Putin and other authoritarians. It's been weird for a while, but it's approaching treasonous.
Anyway, it's a 100% certainty that if Trump loses the next election he will insist it was stolen, again. 100% certainty, you know it, and I know it. So I guess you should go ahead and start planning your new constitution... if how you guys govern in the House is any indication it should be very entertaining for the rest of us.
Reply Quote
4
2 edits
FlossyDFlynt
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldsouljer • 9:04p, 12/29/23
Oldsouljer said:
FlossyDFlynt said:
hokiewolf said:
Oldsouljer said:
hokiewolf said:
Yeah, the more I've read about the Colorado decision, the more I disagree with that one. This is just an egregious overreach by this person. She should not be using her office for partisan political decisions like that. It's setting an incredibly dangerous precedent.
It's worth discussing the precise nature of that danger. The 2020 shenanigans deniers notwithstanding, a repeat of that election could all too easily fuel secessionist tendencies throughout the country, and nowhere are they stronger than in Texas, the tenth largest economy in the world.
yeah, that fever dream ain't happening. But creating confusion for a 2024 election that will already be problematic is a turrible strategy whether you are far left or far right.
I agree with this take. The secession/civil war talk is just straight nonsense. Hell, just ask Britain how its going post Brexit and they were way better prepared for that type of scenario than any single state in the US
It's been nonsense. Past tense. Things are changing. We shouldn't have millions of aliens invading but we do. We shouldn't have 33 trillion in debt and rising but we do. Sovereign debt crises loom. Crime is sky rocketing to levels heretofore not seen. Global alliances are shifting, and enemies of this country are in high gear working to undermine us in a myriad of ways, particularly with the ditching of the petrodollar. Blue states are going hard in one direction, red in the other. If you think a national disintegration scenario is totally implausible, the floor is yours, make your case.
Simple. Remember CHOP/CHAZ in Seattle in 2020? It lasted just a few weeks with a sympathetic city/local/state government. Now imagine a single level of hostility from any level of government and its over. Even if you scale it up to a state like Texas, they would still collapse, it would just take a bit longer.

This isn't a government positive response from my end. Its a house of cards at all levels and remove any of them, and the infrastructure falls. The only reason the British haven't suffered this fate yet is that they weren't on the Euro when they voted themselves out of the EU.
Reply Quote
1
First Page Last Page
Page 55 of 202 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.