TakeYouToTasker

As I said, I went into this as a well documented "Never Trump" libertarian who felt his election would destroy the Republican Party, and American conservatism forever. That's well documented here. I got involved with the evidence of Russian collusion because, much like you, I thought it to be credible. However, as I followed the evidence, I realized something: there was no evidence being presented of President Trump colluding with Russia; but there was tons of evidence that something else entirely was afoot. So, I followed the evidence where it led, and it led far away for the Trump campaign.

No, it was not the 8th school shooting since January 1. That has already been completely debunked in this very thread: Now, ask yourself: why would someone lie to you, and try to inflate these numbers?

No, what "we" are apparently going to pretend is that there is not voluminous evidence piling up that the prior administration engaged in treasonous activities in order to influence a federal election, and that they have attempted a soft coup in the aftermath. The evidence is such that you can no longer ignore it.

I began Trump's Presidency as a "Never Trump" libertarian. That's well documented here. However, I have been more than pleasantly surprised by the job he has done. He's rolled back decades of economy crippling regulations sounding a death knell for the bureaucratic state, made our corporate tax rate competitive enough that corporations are bringing trillions in offshored dollars back into our economy, has broken up an unprecedented amount of human trafficking rings, has normalized relations with Israel, has nearly defeated ISIS, has put thousands of dollars back into the pockets of regular Americans, has defended the Second Amendment, has appointed a brilliant libertarian jurist to the Court, has empowered the DIA to end a web of corruption in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has increased domestic energy production making us less dependent on foreign oil, has worked to end chain immigration, has reinstated weakened separation of powers... this list goes on and on. These are all positives.

Russia, and state actors from other nations, friend and foe, have always tried to influence our elections and sow dissent amongst our citizens. We have always done the same to them. Do you not remember President Obama's work to influence Israeli election? Or Jimmy Carter working hand in hand with Russia in an attempt to defeat Reagan? That's how geo-politics works: nations always try to work in their own best interests, even as relates to the leadership of other nations. And do nothing? What do you mean "do nothing"? Did you miss the part where Donald Trump's Executive branch just indicted 13 foreign nationals? Maybe you just misspelled "is indicting 13 individuals related to Russian election meddling" and mistakenly typed "is doing nothing"?

@elroy16 Yes, locker room talk. That's all there is evidence of. Anything else is just more dishonesty from you, and pushing a narrative. We have a system which vets these claims, and none of these women "coming forward" thought to file charges. Not one. While at the same time it is coming out that women are being paid to "come forward" with claims of abuse against Republicans. And there is nothing wrong with being in the locker room of people of the opposite sex while they're changing; or at least that's what I'm told by the left when they insist on female reporter's right to be present in men's locker rooms. So what did the President do wrong in that regard? As to Porter, again, what other offences are on the list for never being allowed to work again? Is it not possible to have integrity and honor after making a mistake? Is he irredeemable? Also, you'll note the word "allegations"... not charges, not convictions, not evidence, but "allegations". Is that the standard? Fine. If I allege that you beat your wife, should you be fired? This is the reason the country is so divided. Why can't you present a fact base case without lying?

Arthur Jones isn't a conservative. He's a white nationalist. Ideologically he's a socialist who happens to be a racist. He doesn't reflect conservative, libertarian, or Republican values; isn't being run or financed by the Republican Party, and doesn't have their support. Why should conservatives welcome him into our tent in order to own him so we can criticize him? Hell, he describes himself as a Lincolnite which I thought made him a Democrat?

No Republican would win in that district. It's why they weren't running anyone.

No, we'll have a Second Amendment. Either that or we'll have so much bloodshed that people will be longing for the days when mass shootings were taking the lives of around twice as many as die of constipation annually.

You can get 600 signatures for just about anything by standing out in front of a super market for an afternoon and putting you best foot forward. "Hi, my name is Arthur Jones, and I'm a Republican running for Congress. Would you mind signing this to advance my candidacy? Thank you." Again, why can't you just be honest?

The President was talking to a shock jock in his prior career, engaging in locker room talk. Is it a desirable? Not to me personally, I find it to distasteful; but let's not pretend that it wasn't standard talk that lots of men engage in. Your faux moral preening over it, equating it with sexual assault is, once again, a lie made by a low morals liberal in order to advance their agenda. Why can't you be honest? As for the "cover up of a wife beater", can you explain the cover up portion? Do you mean "hire someone who hit their wife"? Do you know if this person suffered prior fallout of any kind for their actions? And again, can you please provide me with a list of actions which an individual can take which should prevent them from working ever again?

Again with the absurd levels of intellectual dishonesty. Why is it so hard for you to be truthful about these things? As happens with a good deal of frequency, Illinois Republicans were not planning on wasting resources running any candidate at all in that district because it is heavily Democratic and boasts a popular Democratic incumbent, and would rather simply concede a race they knew they had little to no chance of winning. Then, at literally the last minute as he filed at the deadline, preventing the Illinois GOP from running anyone to oppose him out of principle, he declared against the wishes of the GOP who are vocally opposing him, and are now looking for an outside challenger. But no, you come here and lie, framing your sentence in a way that would leave an uninformed reader to believe that the Republican Party is intentionally advancing white nationalists to platform their beliefs unopposed by choice. Why do you do this? How did you become so comfortable telling lies?

This is a false equivalence where you attempt to justify outright lies being told to the people by CIA state propaganda to cover for crimes by the state with a single flawed man who assaulted another individual. As to your assertions about the President, that's just another example of a low morals liberal telling another lie to advance their agenda. Being truthful doesn't matter when you're resisting the duly elected President and trying to subvert democratic principals, amirite? As an aside, can you please provide me with a complete list of actions an individual can take which you believe should prohibit them from ever being able to work again?

If you made a search of this site you'd find examples of white nationalists who have been run out of this community by board conservatives for espousing hate. But, like I said, you're a liberal of low morals so you're perfectly happy to lie to advance your agenda. Par for the course.

My theory behind this is that for liberals, who are far less inclined to believe in any form of higher power, their self-serving goal is their highest moral priority, and therefore the ends will always justify the means: IE. it's OK to lie, cheat, steal, rig and election, murder Seth Rich, attempt to overthrow a justly elected government, etc. so long as it advances their agenda; whereas conservatives tend to be more religious and have a moral structure which dictates a generally more honest approach.

I'd be interested to hear your suggestions.

This is by design. Does it at all occur to anyone that the same group of people who tried to rig a federal election and then attempted a coup attempt to overthrow the legitimate government, would also be in favor of confiscating the arms of the People they propose to dictate to? Hasn't that always been the way it's happened? Isn't that the precise purpose of the Second Amendment?

This is either funny because you precisely understood the point I was making and are a master of ironic humor, or it's funny because you so wildly missed my point that it's hilarious. I'm honestly not sure which, but either way I want to thank you for the good laugh.

Bob, it would be absolutely adorable how oblivious you are if you weren't a grown ass man who should know better. It would far more difficult to find an argument which you haven't made poorly. I'll tell you what: because I'm such a good sport, I'll let you pick the argument, and I'll explain to you why it's poor, both structurally and practically. And, Bob, you've yet to point out any flaws in any of my arguments. That's not because my arguments are always 100% flawless. I'm always open to the possibility that I may be wrong, because I don't have enough information, or because someone else's knowledge is more extensive or more complete. It's the primary reason I post on boards like these: to have my ideas vetted through argument and conversation. The reason you haven't pointed out any flaws in my arguments is because you're too closed minded to hear new, better evidence, to stoned comprehend most of the arguments I'm making, and not skilled enough to do so.

My "jam" is freedom, bro. That's been infuriating to monarchists like yourself ever since it became a thing.

...

Bob, your inability to form internally logically consistent arguments, to process new information, and even to read would be hilarious so long as you don't have the ability to pass any of your compromised genetics along to another generation. Any shot your drug habit has down graded your ability to procreate? No matter. Your arguments, buttressed with a staggering unwillingness to learn and complete lack of coherency, are so poor that they serve as comparative illustrations in favor of the person arguing against you. You bring an immense value to those holding opposing positions because you consistently help them make their case far better than they could make on their own. You're an Abbott. If you didn't exist on your own, I'd be tempted to invent you.

You have to remember, Bob is intellectually lazy, and rejects out of hand information which doesn't report to his (unresearched) confirmation biases. Bob isn't interested in your facts. He'll ask you to do all the work, and then reject your evidence.

LOL @ the militarization of our schools proposal. No idea too stupid to champion I guess.

Individual incidents are problematic, but we don't have an epidemic which rises to the standard of requiring government intervention at the level of the violation of natural and Constitutional rights. Interesting you mention Parkinson's. There are approximately 50,000 new diagnoses of Parkinson's every year, while there are, on the high end, only 400 deaths related to mass shootings annually. The annual death toll from mass shootings is similar to that of bathtub drownings. Why aren't we up in arms about limiting the volume of water that can be contained in bathtubs? Or requiring bathtub owners to register themselves and staff their homes with lifeguards?