Right Wing Terrorists Arrested In Kidnaping Plot Of Governor Whitmer

[Cinga]

20 hours ago, Capco said:

 

Hahahahahaha what a simpleton.  Here, let me try to answer pictorially for you.  

 

 

The vast majority of scholars place Nazism and Fascism on the far-right.  

 

https://archive.org/details/germansintonazis00frit

https://archive.org/details/routledgecompani00davi

 

You probably have no idea why the word socialism was even included in the party name, so I'll tell you.  It was because socialism was wildly popular in Europe during the 1920s and the only way the far-right could compete was to veil their platform as an equal alternative to the standard definition of socialism by incorporating left wing organizational tactics and blending them with right wing views.  

 

In Mussolini's own words:  "Fascism, sitting on the right, could also have sat on the mountain of the center.... These words in any case do not have a fixed and unchanged meaning: they do have a variable subject to location, time and spirit. We don't give a damn about these empty terminologies and we despise those who are terrorized by these words"

 

By all means, please find a credible scholarly source that supports the notion that Nazis and Fascists reside on the far left of the political spectrum.  It will be difficult, but have fun trying.  

 

Are you f***ing serious? You come here and call me a simpleton while bringing out this ridiculous globalist chart from the 70s? Example 2,187 of why some people need to go back to school and slap their teacher/professor!

 

Look, the only thing someone might claim conservative thought has with fascism is fascism is nationalistic while most conservatives are patriotic. Because of this, some idiots point and say look, they must be on the same side of the spectrum which is total bullschiff!

But look closer in HONESTY! The further right you get the LESS government you want. So in reality, to the right of conservative would be libertarian (still patriotic with even more individual freedom) and finally total anarchy, no government at all.

Now, look to the left and you see a growing government involvement the further left you go. Beginning with classic liberalism which was more concerned with personal liberties and then modern liberalism which is less personal responsibilities and as the government controls more and more, the power of the government over virtually everything continues to grow. And as it grows. it thirsts for even more power until it limits or bans opposing views and gives you a totalitarian state that can be either communism or fascism. Communism if it stears toward a more globalist narrative, fascism if it is more nationalistic (NOT to be confused with patriotism!) but still both totalitarian. 

 

Here is a more accurate and simple single line spectrum:

 

 

Now look at the modern Democrat Party:
Abolish the Electoral College

Add PR and DC as states, packing the Senate

Packing the courts with activist judges

Calling the Constitution a "living breathing document" to justify their re-interpretation of it

 

Those moves if enacted would literally turn our nation into a single party system. See the above description as you move further left. 

 

And if you're going to keep on with the childish name calling, don't bother because I won't reply again if you do... 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

......purported US Marines pardoned by a Dem Delaware judge.....so how do we politicize THAT?.....embrace party neutrality for a moment just to realize the extreme views before us like no other period in the country's history....Trump's fault?.....a fallacious convenient excuse.........

[Capco]

23 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

Are you f***ing serious? You come here and call me a simpleton while bringing out this ridiculous globalist chart from the 70s? Example 2,187 of why some people need to go back to school and slap their teacher/professor!

 

Look, the only thing someone might claim conservative thought has with fascism is fascism is nationalistic while most conservatives are patriotic. Because of this, some idiots point and say look, they must be on the same side of the spectrum which is total bullschiff!

But look closer in HONESTY! The further right you get the LESS government you want. So in reality, to the right of conservative would be libertarian (still patriotic with even more individual freedom) and finally total anarchy, no government at all.

Now, look to the left and you see a growing government involvement the further left you go. Beginning with classic liberalism which was more concerned with personal liberties and then modern liberalism which is less personal responsibilities and as the government controls more and more, the power of the government over virtually everything continues to grow. And as it grows. it thirsts for even more power until it limits or bans opposing views and gives you a totalitarian state that can be either communism or fascism. Communism if it stears toward a more globalist narrative, fascism if it is more nationalistic (NOT to be confused with patriotism!) but still both totalitarian. 

 

Here is a more accurate and simple single line spectrum:

 

 

Now look at the modern Democrat Party:
Abolish the Electoral College

Add PR and DC as states, packing the Senate

Packing the courts with activist judges

Calling the Constitution a "living breathing document" to justify their re-interpretation of it

 

Those moves if enacted would literally turn our nation into a single party system. See the above description as you move further left. 

 

And if you're going to keep on with the childish name calling, don't bother because I won't reply again if you do... 

 

 

Cinga claims they aren't a simpleton only to show a vastly "simplified" (and entirely inaccurate) single-line spectrum.  

 

Fascists and Nazis self-described their platforms as right wing, and the vast majority of scholars agree with those connotations.  Again, please provide a credible scholarly source that refutes the notion that Mussolini himself was wrong when he described his own party's platform as being on the "right," especially if you're trying to bring up education as a basis for your argument.   

 

I'm still waiting.  

 

And just to be clear, you can be left and want no government or lots of government.  You can be right and want no government or lots of government.  THAT'S what the graphic I provided represents.  It's more inclusive than whatever boneheaded boiling down you are trying to accomplish by lumping the authority axis with the left-right axis.  

 

No professional worth their salt would ever use a single-line spectrum.  THAT is grade-school ***** right there.  

[Capco]

6 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

Well you failed miserably. That chart says absolutely nothing about what puts Republicans on far right.  
 

And when I asked for conservative ideals you gave me two people. Those aren’t ideals.  I was looking for ideologies. 
 

Try this again please. What would you consider as core conservative ideologies that the “typical” conservative person (not politician) holds near and dear. 

 

Conservativism in the United States is characterized by respect for American traditions, republicanism, limited government, support for Christian values, moral universalism, pro-business, opposition to trade unions, strong national defense, free trade, anti-communism, pro-individualism, advocacy of American exceptionalism, and a defense of Western culture from the perceived threats posed by communism, socialism, and moral relativism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States

 

How's that sound?

Edited October 11, 2020 by Capco

[B-Man]

11 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Fascists and Nazis self-described their platforms as right wing

 

 

Link ?

 

 

 

[Capco]

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Link ?

 

 

 

 

https://www.coursehero.com/file/p7rh5iq/preoccupation-with-community-decline-humiliation-or-victimhood-and-by/

Another good quote:  "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century."

[Cinga]

13 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

https://www.coursehero.com/file/p7rh5iq/preoccupation-with-community-decline-humiliation-or-victimhood-and-by/

Another good quote:  "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century."

 

I told you schools have been teaching wrong and you quote curriculum? The main problem is, some things really are as simple as a straight line. If you ant quotes on socialism and fascism, here you go:
https://libquotes.com/adolf-hitler/quotes/socialism

[Capco]

6 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

I told you schools have been teaching wrong and you quote curriculum?

 

It's a direct quote from Mussolini, not an academic.  

Edited October 11, 2020 by Capco

[Cinga]

7 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

It's a direct quote from Mussolini, not an academic.  

 

And I just showed you Hitler himself thought otherwise.... 

[Capco]

Just now, Cinga said:

 

And I just showed you Hitler himself thought otherwise.... 

 

There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan, or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew.

 

https://archive.org/stream/TheSpeechesOfAdolfHitler19211941/hitler-speeches-collection_djvu.txt

[Chef Jim]

40 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Conservativism in the United States is characterized by respect for American traditions, republicanism, limited government, support for Christian values, moral universalism, pro-business, opposition to trade unions, strong national defense, free trade, anti-communism, pro-individualism, advocacy of American exceptionalism, and a defense of Western culture from the perceived threats posed by communism, socialism, and moral relativism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States

 

How's that sound?

Sounds like you don’t have a clue or you’re terribly lazy. 
 

But regardless I think those are some pretty good values don’t you. 
 

And funny how there is no mention of:

 

Racism

Homophobia

Xenophobia

Misogyny 

 

Again I’m not accusing you of saying conservatives are any of those things by many many are. 

[Cinga]

9 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan, or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew.

 

https://archive.org/stream/TheSpeechesOfAdolfHitler19211941/hitler-speeches-collection_djvu.txt

 

He is arguing National SOCIALISM (Fascism) vs Bolshevik Socialism (Communism), both still socialism to the extreme of totalitarian states.

 

From your link:

'NATIONAL' AND 'SOCIAL' ARE TWO IDENTICAL CONCEPTIONS. It was only the Jew who 
succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the 
social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has 
in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give 
expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of 
what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it "National 
Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and 
all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means 
so to build up the state and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the 
community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable 
straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it. 

[Cinga]

19 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Sounds like you don’t have a clue or you’re terribly lazy. 
 

But regardless I think those are some pretty good values don’t you. 
 

And funny how there is no mention of:

 

Racism

Homophobia

Xenophobia

Misogyny 

 

Again I’m not accusing you of saying conservatives are any of those things by many many are. 

 

See, and this is one of the reasons people actually feel justified calling conservatives those names since it is a trait of both fascists and communists. However opposed they are to each other however they are still both forms of socialism, with one simply more nationalist.

[Capco]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

Sounds like you don’t have a clue or you’re terribly lazy. 
 

But regardless I think those are some pretty good values don’t you. 
 

And funny how there is no mention of:

 

Racism

Homophobia

Xenophobia

Misogyny 

 

Again I’m not accusing you of saying conservatives are any of those things by many many are. 

 

I'm actually pretty busy right now but there's also no need to reinvent the wheel, either.  

 

I don't think several of those values are good, namely limited government, support for Christian values, moral universalism, pro-business, opposition to trade unions, free trade, and the advocacy of American exceptionalism.

 

In the words of someone much more well-equipped for this kind of discussion, I agree that in some ways the overall question of left or right is as follows: 

 

"The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be."  

 

-Roderick Stackelburg, Hitler's Germany

[Chef Jim]

28 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

I'm actually pretty busy right now but there's also no need to reinvent the wheel, either.  

 

I don't think several of those values are good, namely limited government, support for Christian values, moral universalism, pro-business, opposition to trade unions, free trade, and the advocacy of American exceptionalism.

 

In the words of someone much more well-equipped for this kind of discussion, I agree that in some ways the overall question of left or right is as follows: 

 

"The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be."  

 

-Roderick Stackelburg, Hitler's Germany

1. More limited government translates to the true conservative as more liberty and more money in

my pocket. The federal government is so bloated and wasteful. I have a client who works for the feds in contract procurement. She hates her job because she sees the vast amounts of waste everyday.  I told her she should look into whistleblowing 

 

2.  What Christian values do you have an issue with?  Treating your fellow man with love and kindness is bad?  Being more responsible for your own actions?  I and not a Christian but some of the kindest people I know are. 
 

3. Being against pro business?  So that means anti business is a good thing?  I don’t even know where to start. 
 

4. Anti Unions.  They were needed 100 years ago. I think today they harm the worker more than business does. 
 

5.  Free trade?  Explain what is wrong with a competitive market place?  This is where Trump has shines IMO.

 

6.  American exceptionalism?  It’s more of an attitude than anything else. You feel exceptional you often become exceptional. 
 

 

[Capco]

14 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

1.  More limited government translates to the true conservative as more liberty and more money in my pocket. The federal government is so bloated and wasteful. I have a client who works for the feds in contract procurement. She hates her job because she sees the vast amounts of waste everyday.  I told her she should look into whistleblowing 

 

2.  What Christian values do you have an issue with?  Treating your fellow man with love and kindness is bad?  Being more responsible for your own actions?  I and not a Christian but some of the kindest people I know are. 
 

3.  Being against pro business?  So that means anti business is a good thing?  I don’t even know where to start. 
 

4.  Anti Unions.  They were needed 100 years ago. I think today they harm the worker more than business does. 
 

5.  Free trade?  Explain what is wrong with a competitive market place?  This is where Trump has shines IMO.

 

6.  American exceptionalism?  It’s more of an attitude than anything else. You feel exceptional you often become exceptional. 

 

1.  Let me put it this way:  government should be as small, lean, and efficient as possible as long as the government is still able to perform its necessary functions.  I think the line to be drawn is not the size of the government per se, but how much one expects the government to do as a "necessary function."  

 

2.  Christianity is a faith of violence, corruption, superstition, bigotry, and sectarianism.  None of the values you mentioned are exclusive to or derived solely from Christianity.  

 

3.  Being against pro-business approaches to government does not equal being anti-business.  Talk about black-and-white.  The best way to help the individual worker is to advocate for the individual worker, not for the employers.  History has repeatedly shown that employers and businesses will get away with whatever they can in search of profit.

 

4.  See 3.  Hence the genesis and continued necessity of labor unions.  Constant vigilance is required to combat the bulwark of the profit motive.  

 

5.  Trade should be fair more than free.  A perfectly free trade system is where anything goes and there are no laws and regulations governing any type of commerce.  Again history has shown that this approach is actually bad for economies as a whole.  

 

6.  The idea that Americans are exceptional is entirely in line with the quote from my last post.  If you think Americans are exceptional compared to non-Americans, then that means you think there is inherent inequality present between Americans and non-Americans, which is an ideology of the right.  I despise inequality and this is a form of it.  

[WideNine]

19 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

We agree in principle, though to be fair, I said it was odd to me, not odd in general. My general feeling is that when someone feels as passionately about something (in this case, politics and  DJT), a shameless power grab if the sort Pelosi is about would be met with....well, passion, not “meh”.  
 

In this case, a play of this nature made by other Washington elites with R on their business card would be just as troubling to me. 
 

 

 

 

My passion for effective government is real, but my meh for Pelosi's action is grounded in my firm belief that it is political theatre and deserving a "meh".

 

I believe Trump is unfit for office based, at its root, on his psychotic ego and pride which demand utter loyalty and agreement from those around him or he jettisons them, and his unprofressional irresponsibility unbefitting the Office.

 

That is why his tenure in office has seen a revolving door of cabinet positions, positions that he filled with his own picks, who leave after brief stints in role and each say the same thing - the man is unfit for office.

 

These are people that worked far more closely with the man than you or I likely ever will, and likely have a better perspective.

 

There are enough similarities in all the accounts of individuals who have left the Trump orbit of influence that it strains credulity that the issues the man has in regards to effectively ruling, abiding by our nations laws and norms, and working with others are somehow contrived or corroborated.

 

But elections are intended to address the necessary changes we need in Washington, not what Nancy is up to.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right, but it is just as bad as the GOP-led attacks on our election process, gerrymandering, and voter suppression tactics.

 

Every GOP-funded study, every case that has gone to court and was asked to provide proof of significant voter fraud has failed to do so. Because, outside of some insignificantly small random Republican and Democratic instances of fraud, there just isn't enough of it to justify the voting suppression tactics that the GOP has increasingly used.

 

Yet "significant fraud" is the excuse to limit the ballot drop off locations of the largest county in Texas to 1 location. And we have the audacity to chide other nations for voter suppression and disenfranchisement. 

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/520099-fears-grow-of-voter-suppression-in-texas

 

If the only way you can win elections is by keeping the poor or minorities from casting their ballots then there is probably something wrong with the candidates you are backing.

 

You and others don't have to agree with me and may never do so - that is fine. I would freely argue with you, but I would never get behind any practice that discouraged or prevented you from voting your conscience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by WideNine

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

55 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

My passion for effective government is real, but my meh for Pelosi's action is grounded in my firm belief that it is political theatre and deserving a "meh".

 

I believe Trump is unfit for office based, at its root, on his psychotic ego and pride which demand utter loyalty and agreement from those around him or he jettisons them, and his unprofressional irresponsibility unbefitting the Office.

 

That is why his tenure in office has seen a revolving door of cabinet positions, positions that he filled with his own picks, who leave after brief stints in role and each say the same thing - the man is unfit for office.

 

These are people that worked far more closely with the man than you or I likely ever will, and likely have a better perspective.

 

There are enough similarities in all the accounts of individuals who have left the Trump orbit of influence that it strains credulity that the issues the man has in regards to effectively ruling, abiding by our nations laws and norms, and working with others are somehow contrived or corroborated.

 

But elections are intended to address the necessary changes we need in Washington, not what Nancy is up to.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right, but it is just as bad as the GOP-led attacks on our election process, gerrymandering, and voter suppression tactics.

 

Every GOP-funded study, every case that has gone to court and was asked to provide proof of significant voter fraud has failed to do so. Because, outside of some insignificantly small random Republican and Democratic instances of fraud, there just isn't enough of it to justify the voting suppression tactics that the GOP has increasingly used.

 

Yet "significant fraud" is the excuse to limit the ballot drop off locations of the largest county in Texas to 1 location. And we have the audacity to chide other nations for voter suppression and disenfranchisement. 

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/520099-fears-grow-of-voter-suppression-in-texas

 

If the only way you can win elections is by keeping the poor or minorities from casting their ballots then there is probably something wrong with the candidates you are backing.

 

You and others don't have to agree with me and may never do so - that is fine. I would freely argue with you, but I would never get behind any practice that discouraged or prevented you from voting your conscience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That ship, the one where people of otherwise good will presume to tell me that they would never participate in efforts to disenfranchise me and my vote, that ship has sailed.  
 

I watched it leave the dock, the people on board seeming to wave goodbye as they left, animated, energetic, passionate.  At some point it occurred to me—they weren’t waving—they were giving me the finger.  
 

They did it when they laughed at the mockery of the Clinton email scam, where a Secretary of State treated her confidential email like a cheerleader on an overnight trip with her besties. 
 

They did it when Clinton and her liberal pals in the media lead off the first debate with Trump by characterizing him as  a racist/sexist/xenophobic all the while screaming at the horrible things then candidate Trump might say.  
 

They did it when they actively supported the notion I’m both deplorable and irredeemable, apparently because I work for a living, pay my taxes, volunteer in my community and try to honor my family in the best way I can. 
 

They did it by supporting what amounted to a Ted Clancy* novel about a famous real estate investor raised a Russian spy who hid in plain sight, waiting for a time when one of the most unlikable people on the planet was to ascend to the throne, only to be undone at the last minute by the most unlikely candidate in Presidential history.  
 

They did it when, at the end of the absurdly comical “Your guy is a treasonous piece of **** and you are too for voting for him!” gambit, when all the dopey russiamaniacs were left with their collective liberal pud in their collective liberal hands, they lacked the courtesy, decency and self-awareness to even mutter a “Wow, we were lied to.”. 
 

They did it when they sat by and grinned knowingly as the hangman for the resistance set about destroying a man with 30 years exemplary service to his fellow man by impugning his reputation with sordid tales of gang rape and adolescent groping, and when that Man refused to capitulate, slink off into the corner and die, they celebrated the politics of personal destruction by elevating the hangman to VP status.  They didn’t stop to question the irony of it all, the hangman who believed Biden’s accuser promoted to VP for a gut with 30 years of documented groping of woman and child.   
 

You say it’s political theater that one of the most powerful people in the country, herself the architect of an impeachment gambit, would set the wheels in motion to remove a sitting president “just cause”?   I’d have agreed 4 years ago. 
 

The way I see it, one of the main reasons the libs and msm despise  DJT is because DJT beat them at their own game.  He outlasted Russia, he outlasted the Kavanaugh lynch mob, he outlasted Pelosi and Shiff on impeachment, and he most recently out-Bidened Biden in the debate.  Odd, really, that decorum and civility were suddenly the rule of the day when just a few short years ago, a much more vigorous Biden interrupted Paul “Eddie Haskell” Ryan, and so many of the finger flippers raged about his performance.  
 

Anyway, we’re in an era where civility and common ground are increasingly difficult to find.   To be completely honest I don’t care to meet there anyway.  I’ll hang out with the other 60,000,000 people lots of the finger flippers feel have no redeeming value.  
 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[WideNine]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

That ship, the one where people of otherwise good will presume to tell me that they would never participate in efforts to disenfranchise me and my vote, that ship has sailed.  

Folks disagreeing with your take on Trump, or even if there are Super Pacs that attack Trump (he has plenty that attack Biden) none of these things prevent you from voting how you see fit. You are not disenfranchised as a voter because you are disagreed with. You are disgruntled.

You would potentially be disenfranchised if you were elderly citizen and did not have a car and I demanded that you deliver your vote in person on the other side of a city of millions with only one ballot collection location during a pandemic.

 

They did it when, at the end of the absurdly comical “Your guy is a treasonous piece of **** and you are too for voting for him!” gambit, when all the dopey russiamaniacs were left with their collective liberal pud in their collective liberal hands, they lacked the courtesy, decency and self-awareness to even mutter a “Wow, we were lied to.”. 
 

We were lied to:

2016 Republican Primary Debate

• Trumps Self-Proclaims phenomenal business practice that is in hot water for tax evasion - will not be surprised if there is more.
• Trump talks about how he would fix our national debt that was at 19 trillion dollars it now stands at over 27 trillion
• Talks about how he would bring Global respect for the US - our Global image has plummeted in every poll:https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/09/15/us-image-plummets-internationally-as-most-say-country-has-handled-coronavirus-badly/

Also another good example of the abundance of non-civil sophomoric personal attacks which has always been the stock & trade of how Trump treats people, especially anyone that disagrees with him.
 

Regarding Russia:

Well the bipartisan Senate Intelligence report concluded that Russia did interfere on behalf of Trump, and the coordination from Trump's inner circle with Roger Stone to release the hacked Russian hacked emails is not fake, or a hoax or anything else. I won't comment on the email contents that had the DNC's crooked stacking the deck against a Sander's nomination as it is not germane to your assertion that Russia was not working to interfere. They were and since people fall for every tweet and fake account out there, it was not very hard for them to do.

https://www.fox44news.com/news/national-world-news/final-senate-report-on-russian-election-interference-released/
 

Is there any deeper connections with Russia? I don't know now and maybe never will. Trump has an odd history and behavior with Putin, it could be kompromat, or it could be he really wants to build a Trump Tower in Moscow and do business with Russia. Maybe we all learn something down the road.



 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 30 years exemplary service to his fellow man .   

OK, I have to check. You are referencing Donald Trump here?
 

The only person Donald has ever served is himself.

 

 

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

You say it’s political theater that one of the most powerful people in the country, herself the architect of an impeachment gambit, would set the wheels in motion to remove a sitting president “just cause”?   I’d have agreed 4 years ago. 

To be fair Republicans went after impeaching Slick Willy Clinton for getting a BJ... and Donald withheld funds earmarked for Ukraine till they would provide him with some kind of dirt on Biden. He brought that on himself, and yes, it is political theatre because without a majority in the Senate these things amount to just pissing in the wind.
 

The way I see it, one of the main reasons the libs and msm despise  DJT is because DJT beat them at their own game.  He outlasted Russia, he outlasted the Kavanaugh lynch mob, he outlasted Pelosi and Shiff on impeachment, and he most recently out-Bidened Biden in the debate.  Odd, really, that decorum and civility were suddenly the rule of the day when just a few short years ago, a much more vigorous Biden interrupted Paul “Eddie Haskell” Ryan, and so many of the finger flippers raged about his performance.  

The Dems want Biden because he is a Democrat, many Liberals do not like Biden as he is seen as too centrist. Why others hate Trump, I can't speak for them only for my own reasons I find the man repulsive.
 

Anyway, we’re in an era where civility and common ground are increasingly difficult to find.   To be completely honest I don’t care to meet there anyway.  I’ll hang out with the other 60,000,000 people lots of the finger flippers feel have no redeeming value.  

 

Fair enough, but I find this perspective interesting as I have not flipped the finger at you personally. Do you honestly believe that Trump promotes civil discourse?

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

20 hours ago, HamSandwhich said:

Didn’t you want to do away with the electoral college? That’s a stalwart of the Democratic Republic.  I’m not so sure you’re for the republic, you’re more for the burn it to the ground anarchist/BLM/Antifa sorts. What does this social justice movement want? Again, specifics, you were not specific in your original response. 

I want an end to the war on the poor. A serious look at the war on drugs to start. 

 

With Texas turning blue I have no problem at all with the electoral college.  Love ❤️  it.! Pretty soon, we can start locking Republicans out of the WH using it. 

 

Again, BLM/Antifa have not tried kidnappings, massacres (like right wingers are doing) bomb plots or trying to undermine faith in our voting system, like the president is.