TRUMP 2024

2,495,571 Views | 22287 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by caryking
BBW12OG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gulfstream4 said:

hokiewolf said:

caryking said:

packgrad said:

"Extrajudicially executing" LOLOLOL.

The mentally ill has got it bad this morning.

I love how he honestly thinks anybody believes he is arguing on merit. It's just his latest crybaby outrage that per usual is based on zero fact.

Double tap second order argh!!

I would like to hear Civ's thoughts on what to do with these boats heading to our shores...
We are basically playing the same game of wack-a-mole that has been happening since the late 70s. America will declare victory and the cartels will adjust.

Prohibition doesn't work. Addiction is the problem. Pour the resources into treatment.


Are you willing to give more of your resources to treatment? Can we put you down for a specific tax hike, say 10% of your salary in addition to your normal taxes? You in?


LMAO….. he's NEVER worked a day in his life!

What he has his parents have given him. He has a "job" in title only.

He couldn't pour piss out of a boot with a week to study the instructions.

He's just being his normal BS lying self.

If he actually ever had to work he wouldn't be on this board day in and day during normal working hours.

Pathetic no life having loser.
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

packgrad said:

Dave also said we couldn't stop immigration. It's been this way since the 70s. Look what happened. I think the unserious people like civ and Dave need to be ignored, which thankfully it seems this administration is doing.

Civ wants to jail special forces leaders for killing narco terrorists because he's mentally ill. These people no longer deserve a seat at the table.


LOL @ "wants to jail special forces leaders." Um, no.

It's like whack-a-mole in here.

This whole conversation started because y'all were tantruming that Congressional ex-servicemembers had the audacity to cite a portion of the UCMJ on video that reminded servicemembers of their right and obligation to follow the Constitution, and not illegal orders.

Then when only a couple of weeks later it became patently obvious why the Seditious 6 said what they did, when communication surfaced that pointed to Captain Underpants out there ordering extrajudicial double-taps on drug runners that posed no imminent threat to the US, y'all want to talk about "wanting to jail special forces leaders."

How about just "wanting Trump and GI Joe to not operate like they're above the law."



Captain Underpants? Extrajudicial double taps? Drug runners that pose no imminent threat? "LOLOLOL " But you're not mentally ill?

How about not pretending you have standards? We can just look at your posting history and it is very clear you don't, unless they are conservative.

Look how you've been on a milk carton about your "daddy" or Epstein. You're not much better than a Russian bot, programmed by someone in a faraway room to spout unfounded partisan rhetoric. Baaaaaa.
FlossyDFlynt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

By no means am I advocating for decriminalizing drugs

I get that, but that was the line of thinking behind Oregon's decriminalization which failed miserably.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FlossyDFlynt said:

hokiewolf said:

By no means am I advocating for decriminalizing drugs

I get that, but that was the line of thinking behind Oregon's decriminalization which failed miserably.


I think it's more nuanced than that.

There are visible problems with Oregon's plan that led to more public intoxication and other public nuisances.

The problems you read about other than this are implementation more so than strategic problems.

The treatment infrastructure wasn't ready, referrals (as an alternative to arrests) were weak, and many people who needed help didn't get it.

At the same time, it also wasn't a catastrophe. There's no convincing evidence that the policy itself caused a spike in overdose deaths or violent crime once you account for fentanyl and pandemic effects, and you don't have nearly as many people saddled with both addiction AND criminal records, which isn't a trivial harm-reduction outcome.

It was definitely a flawed experiment but isn't an indictment of the efficacy of treatment; if anything it's perhaps an endorsement of needing robust treatment if you want to see significant public health change. What you can't have is what Oregon got, which was decriminalization without robust and functional referral and treatment pathways.
FlossyDFlynt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

FlossyDFlynt said:

hokiewolf said:

By no means am I advocating for decriminalizing drugs

I get that, but that was the line of thinking behind Oregon's decriminalization which failed miserably.


I think it's more nuanced than that.

There are visible problems with Oregon's plan that led to more public intoxication and other public nuisances.

The problems you read about other than this are implementation more so than strategic problems.

The treatment infrastructure wasn't ready, referrals (as an alternative to arrests) were weak, and many people who needed help didn't get it.

At the same time, it also wasn't a catastrophe. There's no convincing evidence that the policy itself caused a spike in overdose deaths or violent crime once you account for fentanyl and pandemic effects, and you don't have nearly as many people saddled with both addiction AND criminal records, which isn't a trivial harm-reduction outcome.

It was definitely a flawed experiment but isn't an indictment of the efficacy of treatment; if anything it's perhaps an endorsement of needing robust treatment if you want to see significant public health change. What you can't have is what Oregon got, which was decriminalization without robust and functional referral and treatment pathways.

I think youre probably right overall, but this is the same line of excuse we always hear after failed policies. If youre going to make drastic changes in things like public health, you better be sure the infrastructure is in place before said changes. Time and time again, thats not the case and its blamed for failures.

Its why Ive shifted towards a "Ill believe it when I see it" mode with these changes. A lot of them are great in theory, but until I see them actually work...Ill continue to be a skeptic and wont believe itll work.
Gulfstream4
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

Gulfstream4 said:

hokiewolf said:

caryking said:

packgrad said:

"Extrajudicially executing" LOLOLOL.

The mentally ill has got it bad this morning.

I love how he honestly thinks anybody believes he is arguing on merit. It's just his latest crybaby outrage that per usual is based on zero fact.

Double tap second order argh!!

I would like to hear Civ's thoughts on what to do with these boats heading to our shores...
We are basically playing the same game of wack-a-mole that has been happening since the late 70s. America will declare victory and the cartels will adjust.

Prohibition doesn't work. Addiction is the problem. Pour the resources into treatment.


Are you willing to give more of your resources to treatment? Can we put you down for a specific tax hike, say 10% of your salary in addition to your normal taxes? You in?
if it solves the drug problem in America yes. But we are already throwing good money after bad shooting missiles at boats.


Drug Addiction Charities: 9 Organizations for Recovery and Support

https://donorbox.org/nonprofit-blog/drug-addiction-charities
- - - -

Good on you and this should get you started. Make a large donation and post the receipts here for us to see.
Gulfstream4
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

packgrad said:

Dave also said we couldn't stop immigration. It's been this way since the 70s. Look what happened. I think the unserious people like civ and Dave need to be ignored, which thankfully it seems this administration is doing.

Civ wants to jail special forces leaders for killing narco terrorists because he's mentally ill. These people no longer deserve a seat at the table.


LOL @ "wants to jail special forces leaders." Um, no.

It's like whack-a-mole in here.

This whole conversation started because y'all were tantruming that Congressional ex-servicemembers had the audacity to cite a portion of the UCMJ on video that reminded servicemembers of their right and obligation to follow the Constitution, and not illegal orders.

Then when only a couple of weeks later it became patently obvious why the Seditious 6 said what they did, when communication surfaced that pointed to Captain Underpants out there ordering extrajudicial double-taps on drug runners that posed no imminent threat to the US, y'all want to talk about "wanting to jail special forces leaders."

How about just "wanting Trump and GI Joe to not operate like they're above the law."


Are drug runners above the law?
SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gulfstream4 said:

hokiewolf said:

Gulfstream4 said:

hokiewolf said:

caryking said:

packgrad said:

"Extrajudicially executing" LOLOLOL.

The mentally ill has got it bad this morning.

I love how he honestly thinks anybody believes he is arguing on merit. It's just his latest crybaby outrage that per usual is based on zero fact.

Double tap second order argh!!

I would like to hear Civ's thoughts on what to do with these boats heading to our shores...

We are basically playing the same game of wack-a-mole that has been happening since the late 70s. America will declare victory and the cartels will adjust.

Prohibition doesn't work. Addiction is the problem. Pour the resources into treatment.


Are you willing to give more of your resources to treatment? Can we put you down for a specific tax hike, say 10% of your salary in addition to your normal taxes? You in?

if it solves the drug problem in America yes. But we are already throwing good money after bad shooting missiles at boats.


Drug Addiction Charities: 9 Organizations for Recovery and Support

https://donorbox.org/nonprofit-blog/drug-addiction-charities
- - - -

Good on you and this should get you started. Make a large donation and post the receipts here for us to see.

Ahh, another day of Civ and Hokie trying to have an adult conversation while the rest of you (minus Flossy) are spazzing out like rabid teenagers spewing juvenile arguments and rage.

Same as it ever was.
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SmaptyWolf said:

Gulfstream4 said:

hokiewolf said:

Gulfstream4 said:

hokiewolf said:

caryking said:

packgrad said:

"Extrajudicially executing" LOLOLOL.

The mentally ill has got it bad this morning.

I love how he honestly thinks anybody believes he is arguing on merit. It's just his latest crybaby outrage that per usual is based on zero fact.

Double tap second order argh!!

I would like to hear Civ's thoughts on what to do with these boats heading to our shores...

We are basically playing the same game of wack-a-mole that has been happening since the late 70s. America will declare victory and the cartels will adjust.

Prohibition doesn't work. Addiction is the problem. Pour the resources into treatment.


Are you willing to give more of your resources to treatment? Can we put you down for a specific tax hike, say 10% of your salary in addition to your normal taxes? You in?

if it solves the drug problem in America yes. But we are already throwing good money after bad shooting missiles at boats.


Drug Addiction Charities: 9 Organizations for Recovery and Support

https://donorbox.org/nonprofit-blog/drug-addiction-charities
- - - -

Good on you and this should get you started. Make a large donation and post the receipts here for us to see.

Ahh, another day of Civ and Hokie trying to have an adult conversation while the rest of you (minus Flossy) are spazzing out like rabid teenagers spewing juvenile arguments and rage.

Same as it ever was.


Awww, I'm sorry you and Dave didn't get the water cooler shut down yet. Maybe they still will soon. Fingers crossed for you, little fella.
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Have you checked into it....and viewed the double chin. #LMAO
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LOL, the corruption of our judicial system on full display.
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FlossyDFlynt said:

Civilized said:

FlossyDFlynt said:

hokiewolf said:

By no means am I advocating for decriminalizing drugs

I get that, but that was the line of thinking behind Oregon's decriminalization which failed miserably.


I think it's more nuanced than that.

There are visible problems with Oregon's plan that led to more public intoxication and other public nuisances.

The problems you read about other than this are implementation more so than strategic problems.

The treatment infrastructure wasn't ready, referrals (as an alternative to arrests) were weak, and many people who needed help didn't get it.

At the same time, it also wasn't a catastrophe. There's no convincing evidence that the policy itself caused a spike in overdose deaths or violent crime once you account for fentanyl and pandemic effects, and you don't have nearly as many people saddled with both addiction AND criminal records, which isn't a trivial harm-reduction outcome.

It was definitely a flawed experiment but isn't an indictment of the efficacy of treatment; if anything it's perhaps an endorsement of needing robust treatment if you want to see significant public health change. What you can't have is what Oregon got, which was decriminalization without robust and functional referral and treatment pathways.

I think youre probably right overall, but this is the same line of excuse we always hear after failed policies. If youre going to make drastic changes in things like public health, you better be sure the infrastructure is in place before said changes. Time and time again, thats not the case and its blamed for failures.

Its why Ive shifted towards a "Ill believe it when I see it" mode with these changes. A lot of them are great in theory, but until I see them actually work...Ill continue to be a skeptic and wont believe itll work.


Agree. You shouldn't ready, fire, aim when it comes to a dramatic shift in public health policies. Any Oregon officials that don't admit they weren't ready for this are gaslighting.

I do think overall that petty drug criminalization does more harm than good, and that we need waaaay more resources allocated to combat mental health and addiction.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gulfstream4 said:

Civilized said:

packgrad said:

Dave also said we couldn't stop immigration. It's been this way since the 70s. Look what happened. I think the unserious people like civ and Dave need to be ignored, which thankfully it seems this administration is doing.

Civ wants to jail special forces leaders for killing narco terrorists because he's mentally ill. These people no longer deserve a seat at the table.


LOL @ "wants to jail special forces leaders." Um, no.

It's like whack-a-mole in here.

This whole conversation started because y'all were tantruming that Congressional ex-servicemembers had the audacity to cite a portion of the UCMJ on video that reminded servicemembers of their right and obligation to follow the Constitution, and not illegal orders.

Then when only a couple of weeks later it became patently obvious why the Seditious 6 said what they did, when communication surfaced that pointed to Captain Underpants out there ordering extrajudicial double-taps on drug runners that posed no imminent threat to the US, y'all want to talk about "wanting to jail special forces leaders."

How about just "wanting Trump and GI Joe to not operate like they're above the law."


Are drug runners above the law?


Of course not. Apprehend them, try them, and punish them.

Preemptively executing them when it may not be certain that they're even committing a crime we have jurisdiction over ain't the way.
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Maduro's options seem to be dwindling.
Too bad, #Sieve.

packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So good.

caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

FlossyDFlynt said:

hokiewolf said:

By no means am I advocating for decriminalizing drugs

I get that, but that was the line of thinking behind Oregon's decriminalization which failed miserably.


I think it's more nuanced than that.

There are visible problems with Oregon's plan that led to more public intoxication and other public nuisances.

The problems you read about other than this are implementation more so than strategic problems.

The treatment infrastructure wasn't ready, referrals (as an alternative to arrests) were weak, and many people who needed help didn't get it.

At the same time, it also wasn't a catastrophe. There's no convincing evidence that the policy itself caused a spike in overdose deaths or violent crime once you account for fentanyl and pandemic effects, and you don't have nearly as many people saddled with both addiction AND criminal records, which isn't a trivial harm-reduction outcome.

It was definitely a flawed experiment but isn't an indictment of the efficacy of treatment; if anything it's perhaps an endorsement of needing robust treatment if you want to see significant public health change. What you can't have is what Oregon got, which was decriminalization without robust and functional referral and treatment pathways.

Is it true that the block granting of dollars, from the Federal Government to the State Government help lead to the dismantling of Mental Health crises support we currently have?

This block grant was done during the Regan years. Since then, the states may have misused the funding and ultimately lead to the dismantling of the services.

Someone provide more context for me.
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

FlossyDFlynt said:

Civilized said:

FlossyDFlynt said:

hokiewolf said:

By no means am I advocating for decriminalizing drugs

I get that, but that was the line of thinking behind Oregon's decriminalization which failed miserably.


I think it's more nuanced than that.

There are visible problems with Oregon's plan that led to more public intoxication and other public nuisances.

The problems you read about other than this are implementation more so than strategic problems.

The treatment infrastructure wasn't ready, referrals (as an alternative to arrests) were weak, and many people who needed help didn't get it.

At the same time, it also wasn't a catastrophe. There's no convincing evidence that the policy itself caused a spike in overdose deaths or violent crime once you account for fentanyl and pandemic effects, and you don't have nearly as many people saddled with both addiction AND criminal records, which isn't a trivial harm-reduction outcome.

It was definitely a flawed experiment but isn't an indictment of the efficacy of treatment; if anything it's perhaps an endorsement of needing robust treatment if you want to see significant public health change. What you can't have is what Oregon got, which was decriminalization without robust and functional referral and treatment pathways.

I think youre probably right overall, but this is the same line of excuse we always hear after failed policies. If youre going to make drastic changes in things like public health, you better be sure the infrastructure is in place before said changes. Time and time again, thats not the case and its blamed for failures.

Its why Ive shifted towards a "Ill believe it when I see it" mode with these changes. A lot of them are great in theory, but until I see them actually work...Ill continue to be a skeptic and wont believe itll work.


Agree. You shouldn't ready, fire, aim when it comes to a dramatic shift in public health policies. Any Oregon officials that don't admit they weren't ready for this are gaslighting.

I do think overall that petty drug criminalization does more harm than good, and that we need waaaay more resources allocated to combat mental health and addiction.

I'm going to be nikpicky here...

That should have read: Fire, Aim, Ready
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packgrad said:

So good.



This is the raw talk that everyone needs to hear!! Plain and Simple!!
SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caryking said:

packgrad said:

So good.



This is the raw talk that everyone needs to hear!! Plain and Simple!!

It's music to every drunk uncle at Thanksgiving's ears.

So glad we can stop pretending this was just about illegal immigration.

Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The educational process can be tedious and, in some cases, (#daSieve) ........well let's say artful and trying. We might even call it an "ARTFUL DECLASS" for short. ;-)

Rubio Says Venezuelan Government a 'Transshipment Organization' for Drug Trafficking | The Epoch Times
Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro of not having a legitimate government and called the regime a "transshipment organization" to traffic drugs sourced in neighboring Colombia into other countries.

"The Maduro regime is not a legitimate government," Rubio told Fox News host Sean Hannity during a Tuesday evening interview. "What it is is a transshipment organization. It allows cocaine and other drugs that are produced in Colombia to be trafficked through Venezuelan territory andwith the cooperation of elements of the regimeare allowed to ... leave Venezuela on airplanes and ships headed towards the United States."

He added that Maduro's regime "is a source of instability in the entire region" and that 8 million Venezuelan nationals have fled "into neighboring countries as a result of the regime's activities within their own country, including into the United States."

"Maduro asked [the Biden administration] that his nephews, convicted drug traffickers, be released from U.S. prisons," Rubio also said. "He asked that his chief money launderer ... be released from U.S. custody before he stood trial. In exchange, he promised to hold free and fair elections. He got the nephews back, the drug dealers, he got the bag man back, and he never did the free and fair elections."
Rubio's comment comes as President Donald Trump warned on Tuesday that land strikes in Venezuela are coming soon, and days after the president wrote on social media that the country's airspace should be considered closed.

Around 20 U.S. military strikes have been carried out targeting vessels in the Caribbean Sea that officials say were transporting drugs into the United States.

"The president has authorized a counter-drug mission in the region," Rubio said. "The fact that Maduro is upset about it tells you that drugs are coming out of Venezuela."

In November, the State Department said that Maduro is effectively the leader of a cartel called the Cartel de los Soles and placed the organization on its foreign terrorist organization list, opening up new authorities for the Trump administration. Earlier this year, the U.S. government also designated a Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, as a terrorist organization alongside several major Mexican drug cartels.

The Trump administration has sought to ratchet up pressure on Maduro. The U.S. government does not view Maduro as the legitimate leader of the oil-rich South American nation, and he faces charges of narco-terrorism in the United States.
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
#Sieve could use a few neighbors that he enjoys hanging out with. How about it, #Sieve?
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
#Sieve opposes this, I'm sure.
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
#Sieve favors our tax dollars funding Somalian terrorists and Tampon Tim policies.
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't know man. I don't know too much human garbage other than pedophiles, rapists and murders. So, broad brush strokes of immigrants in this country, legal and illegal is unnecessary.
Originator of the Tony Adams Scale
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang tells Joe Rogan the defining trait of President Trump that sets him apart from career politicians.

And it's exactly why the media HATES him.

A few moments later, Huang adds that whenever you speak with Trump, he always begins with his love for America.

HUANG: "You know, part of his charm…well, part of his genius is just he says what's on his mind."

ROGAN: "Yes, which is like an anti-politician in a lot of ways."

HUANG: "Yeah. Right. So you know, what's on his mind is really what's on his mind, and he's telling you what he believes."

ROGAN: "Which, I think people prefer…some people. Some people would rather be lied to."

HUANG: "Yeah, but I…I like the fact that he's telling you what's on his mind."

"Almost every time he explains something and he says something, he starts with his…you could tell his love for America, what he wants to do for America."

"And everything that he thinks through is very practical and very common sense. And, you know, it's very logical."

Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Juan O'Savin has been talking about these small nuclear reactors becoming a reality ....four years ago with the return of Trump Overturning 2020 and saving the republic has been in the works for years. Timing and sequence are 'everything'. Just like Tina Peters, she'll be released ........in sequence......and it will be dramatic.
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

I don't know man. I don't know too much human garbage other than pedophiles, rapists and murders. So, broad brush strokes of immigrants in this country, legal and illegal is unnecessary.

She has zero love for our country, it appears. For that, I'm not sure I care too much about the name calling..
First Page Refresh
Page 637 of 637
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.