BillStime Posted April 9 Posted April 9 45 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: It doesn't matter what Trump says or does. 👆100% MAGA‼️
BillsFanNC Posted April 9 Author Posted April 9 Trump says and does a whole bunch of stupid *****. But they never bring up that *****, it's always the manufactured BS. Commies gotta commie. 1
phypon Posted April 9 Posted April 9 3 minutes ago, daz28 said: You don't see how trump would be president if "Mike Pence did the right thing"? The "loyalist' almost pulled it off, except for ONE guy, and the PATRIOTS at the DOJ, that threatened to all quit. I really hope your bubble isn't that thick. Tell me factually, what part of what I just said is incorrect. So you always been whacka? The election was rigged. Proven in court with the easy manipulation of counting machines, votes from dead people, more votes than registered voters, videos of votes being tossed in a dumpster, votes being transported via freight trucking. That is your deep state. Like it or hate it, we're all being disenfranchised. That's why I say it's bigger than just a Trump issue. They are dividing us. I'd rather not see that happen. People like you and I ARE the PEOPLE and regardless of election results, it should be fair. That DOJ is being used as lawfare, and will most likely be used again after the next election. That's a big problem for either side. We need to see what "they" are doing and try to unify to put a stop to it altogether.
daz28 Posted April 9 Posted April 9 1 minute ago, phypon said: The election was rigged. Proven in court with the easy manipulation of counting machines, votes from dead people, more votes than registered voters, videos of votes being tossed in a dumpster, votes being transported via freight trucking. That is your deep state. Like it or hate it, we're all being disenfranchised. That's why I say it's bigger than just a Trump issue. They are dividing us. I'd rather not see that happen. People like you and I ARE the PEOPLE and regardless of election results, it should be fair. That DOJ is being used as lawfare, and will most likely be used again after the next election. That's a big problem for either side. We need to see what "they" are doing and try to unify to put a stop to it altogether. We've BEEN disenfranchised, but not in the ways you're claiming. Your 'deep state' is people doing their jobs, and I'd love to hear your idea on how you do those jobs w/o people. The real lawfare has been being playing out in Congress for a while, but it's about smearing, not justice. No legislating, no justice just investigating. The system is so rigged against you and I, that it's impossible to even attempt to change it. Our only chance is intelligent, informed voting, and somehow the vast increased access to knowledge has made that nearly impossible. We're not going to put a stop to anything, my friend, but as long as we hold onto civil conversation, it keeps them scared. It's not the false info that's the existential threat, it's the thought of it breaking communication that is. I'm not telling anyone to ignore NC, instead I'm showing you how he's perpetuating the fascist agenda. I think truth soashul is an absolute (worthless)cesspool, but I'm glad it exists. Do you know who the fascists #1 enemy was in the 1930's? They launched their platform on labeling commies, and proceeded onto other 'undesirables' as they gained more power. 28 minutes ago, Wacka said: Projection and obfuscation is all they have. So you'd agree that any state(world view term) should not have any restrictions on your indelible freedom to bodily autonomy, or are you still insisting the state owns that? Is it even possible that ANYTHING could be more personal than your own body?? Should the government, better yet, should a non-secular government have any need whatsoever for your bodily autonomy? I mean if they can do that, then how on Earth could you expect to be secure in your "persons, houses, papers" if you're not even secure in your own body?
phypon Posted April 9 Posted April 9 5 minutes ago, daz28 said: We've BEEN disenfranchised, but not in the ways you're claiming. Your 'deep state' is people doing their jobs, and I'd love to hear your idea on how you do those jobs w/o people. The real lawfare has been being playing out in Congress for a while, but it's about smearing, not justice. No legislating, no justice just investigating. The system is so rigged against you and I, that it's impossible to even attempt to change it. Our only chance is intelligent, informed voting, and somehow the vast increased access to knowledge has made that nearly impossible. We're not going to put a stop to anything, my friend, but as long as we hold onto civil conversation, it keeps them scared. It's not the false info that's the existential threat, it's the thought of it breaking communication that is. I'm not telling anyone to ignore NC, instead I'm showing you how he's perpetuating the fascist agenda. I think truth soashul is an absolute (worthless)cesspool, but I'm glad it exists. Do you know who the fascists #1 enemy was in the 1930's? They launched their platform on labeling commies, and proceeded onto other 'undesirables' as they gained more power. Dude, your example of the 1930's NAZI's exemplifies the left today. "Deplorables", the "intolerant" against what we now call the 'right" or "conservatives". Also, the NAZI party HAD a party here in America. There was also a large communist movement in this country in the late 40's and 50's with doctrine that was meant to come to fruition after 50 years. Hell, go watch "Oppenheimer". You yourself made a comment about changing the Constitution and adding amendments to it. If you are all in on the policies and propaganda that has been put in front of you, then so be it. That being the case, you are not a part of this country and what it was founded on. Go somewhere else. We are at an impasse. I have no sympathy for you. None. 1 1
daz28 Posted April 9 Posted April 9 (edited) 11 minutes ago, phypon said: Dude, your example of the 1930's NAZI's exemplifies the left today. "Deplorables", the "intolerant" against what we now call the 'right" or "conservatives". Also, the NAZI party HAD a party here in America. There was also a large communist movement in this country in the late 40's and 50's with doctrine that was meant to come to fruition after 50 years. Hell, go watch "Oppenheimer". You yourself made a comment about changing the Constitution and adding amendments to it. If you are all in on the policies and propaganda that has been put in front of you, then so be it. That being the case, you are not a part of this country and what it was founded on. Go somewhere else. We are at an impasse. I have no sympathy for you. None. Oppenheimer is your research/background? I'm well aware of the Nazi rise. I have no love for the far right or far left, and for neither political party. All I look for is my(our) freedoms, and compromises from moderate parties for the good of all. I very specifically said well-written Amendments, that would clear up the issues that a yo-yo SCOTUS can't fix. I'm not going anywhere. You'll have to load me on the train. Would never accept your sympathy. May God have mercy on your soul! LOL Edited April 9 by daz28
phypon Posted April 9 Posted April 9 (edited) 14 minutes ago, daz28 said: Oppenheimer is your research/background? I'm well aware of the Nazi rise. I have no love for the far right or far left, and for neither political party. All I look for is my(our) freedoms, and compromises from moderate parties for the good of all. I very specifically said well-written Amendments, that would clear up the issues that a yo-yo SCOTUS can't fix. I'm not going anywhere. You'll have to load me on the train. Would never accept your sympathy. May God have mercy on your soul! LOL By all means, give the rest of us a history lesson of your awareness concerning the Nazi rise. Since you are well aware of the subject, enlighten us on how it unfolded. Start from the beginning, you know the tactics used and so forth. I mean, you must be an expert since you are the one that brought it up initially. Do tell. We all have our popcorn and are waiting for your breakdown... And funny how you that you call the SCOTUS "yo-yo". Who needs checks and balances, right? I think a Nazi would say something like that... Edited April 9 by phypon 1
daz28 Posted April 9 Posted April 9 1 hour ago, phypon said: By all means, give the rest of us a history lesson of your awareness concerning the Nazi rise. Since you are well aware of the subject, enlighten us on how it unfolded. Start from the beginning, you know the tactics used and so forth. I mean, you must be an expert since you are the one that brought it up initially. Do tell. We all have our popcorn and are waiting for your breakdown... And funny how you that you call the SCOTUS "yo-yo". Who needs checks and balances, right? I think a Nazi would say something like that... Try Google, but more importantly, attach yourself to the subject enough to discern what's factual. I'm not your personal Brittanica. Yo-yo meant that they change policy every generation, creating political drama, that they use to distract the uneducated. Imagine the horror of well written out statutes, that aren't secular. 1 minute ago, BillStime said: The cult is panicked - lmao Sounds like a good time to drop a Hunter BAWMBSHELL!!! 1 1
phypon Posted April 9 Posted April 9 8 hours ago, daz28 said: Try Google, but more importantly, attach yourself to the subject enough to discern what's factual. I'm not your personal Brittanica. Yo-yo meant that they change policy every generation, creating political drama, that they use to distract the uneducated. Imagine the horror of well written out statutes, that aren't secular. Sounds like the perfect solution to what you are saying about the SC and well written out statutes would be to leave it up to the states... 1
The Frankish Reich Posted April 9 Posted April 9 12 hours ago, phypon said: Proven in court Where? When?
Tommy Callahan Posted April 9 Posted April 9 Just now, The Frankish Reich said: Where? When? Dobbs. For real. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted April 9 Posted April 9 Just now, Tommy Callahan said: Dobbs. For real. The reference was to the "rigged election" being proved in court. So ... where? When? 1
Tommy Callahan Posted April 9 Posted April 9 2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: The reference was to the "rigged election" being proved in court. So ... where? When? WTH does that have to do with the narrative of this thread?
phypon Posted April 9 Posted April 9 6 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Where? When? You really haven't seen the court case of dominion machines being hacked and votes being flipped? Look it up. Be concerned. It could happen by either party. Not good. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted April 9 Posted April 9 4 minutes ago, phypon said: You really haven't seen the court case of dominion machines being hacked and votes being flipped? Look it up. Be concerned. It could happen by either party. Not good. No, I haven't seen any credible reports of that. In fact, I've seen Dominion settle libel claims against Fox News for nearly a billion dollars.
BillsFanNC Posted April 9 Author Posted April 9 2 minutes ago, phypon said: You really haven't seen the court case of dominion machines being hacked and votes being flipped? Look it up. Be concerned. It could happen by either party. Not good. Finding doesn't rely on any sources to get its news. Information arrives in its brain case out of thin air and then it forms its opinions accordingly. Now if Finding DID actually rely on msm for news and reporting about Dominion, it wouldn't find it anyway, because those stories aren't reported. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted April 9 Posted April 9 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: WTH does that have to do with the narrative of this thread? I don't know. I didn't hijack the thread. I'm just responding to a clearly false claim. To return to the point of the thread: Trump's latest position is consistent with the arguments put forth by the anti-Roe litigants in Dobbs: it is an issue for the states. The problem is that his earlier position - voiced out loud, and often - was that there should be some kind of national compromise, enforced by federal law, guaranteeing the right of women to have an abortion up to 15 weeks, and outlawing it after hat. In other words, some theory that the federal government ultimately can (under delegated constitutional powers) and should impose standardized rules on the 50 states. So when liberals say they're suspicious of Trump's motives here, they're not exactly just making it up. If you are a strict constitutionalist - the federal government only has powers that is has been expressly assigned by the constitution - you never, ever, ever would have suggested that the federal government can and should step into the fray. So either he's not a strict constitutionalist or he's just trying whatever to get elected, implicitly reserving his right to change his mind again. Edited April 9 by The Frankish Reich
phypon Posted April 9 Posted April 9 8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: No, I haven't seen any credible reports of that. In fact, I've seen Dominion settle libel claims against Fox News for nearly a billion dollars. You should look it up. Doesn't matter what your political affiliation is, it's not good. 8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: I don't know. I didn't hijack the thread. I'm just responding to a clearly false claim. Trump's latest position is consistent with the arguments put forth by the anti-Roe litigants in Dobbs: it is an issue for the states. The problem is that his earlier position - voiced out loud, and often - was that there should be some kind of national compromise, enforced by federal law, guaranteeing the right of women to have an abortion up to 15 weeks, and outlawing it after hat. In other words, some theory that the federal government ultimately can (under delegated constitutional powers) and should impose standardized rules on the 50 states. So when liberals say they're suspicious of Trump's motives here, they're not exactly just making it up. If you are a strict constitutionalist - the federal government only has powers that is has been expressly assigned by the constitution - you never, ever, ever would have suggested that the federal government can and should step into the fray. So either he's not a strict constitutionalist or he's just trying whatever to get elected, implicitly reserving his right to change his mind again. Back to the point, that's why it's better to leave it up to the states. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted April 9 Posted April 9 2 minutes ago, phypon said: Back to the point, that's why it's better to leave it up to the states. But more to the point: why should we trust that Trump's latest "completely a matter for the states to decide" will be his position as President? What if Republicans take the Senate and keep the House, and send Trump a bill outlawing abortion nationally after 15 weeks? Would he sign it? He previously suggested he would.
Recommended Posts