The Frankish Reich Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 3 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said: I did no such thing, Sir! And I demand satisfaction for your dastardly imprecations! It's why I write at a 5th grade level. Know your audience! https://www.newsweek.com/trump-fire-and-fury-smart-genius-obama-774169#:~:text=Trump clocked in around mid,nearly a sixth-grade level. Just now, Orlando Buffalo said: So you actually believe he is making decisions right now? But to my point so long he remains the president in name it is not a coup even if he has no power to make any decisions? Yes. You have zero information that he isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Buffalo Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Know your audience! https://www.newsweek.com/trump-fire-and-fury-smart-genius-obama-774169#:~:text=Trump clocked in around mid,nearly a sixth-grade level. Yes. You have zero information that he isn't. I have no evidence he is not making decisions? Frank the signature on his resignation letter is not his. This is not some crazy conspiracy, look at the signature on that letter and every other letter we can prove he signed, it is not his signature. That is evidence he is not making decisions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: I will grant you this: the norm about potential criminal investigations of a sitting president was broken by Newt and the Republicans vs. the Clintons. And since turnabout is fair play in politics, the Democrats did the same thing with Trump. (I will note that the Trump-Russia investigation was at least tied to electoral politics, whereas the Clinton-Whitewater thing wasn't.) Fair enough, though that allegation did not include declarations of treason, either. I was not a fan of the Whitewater probe, was young enough to think it was a personal matter only. I knew nothing of Clinton's proclivity toward sexual predation, power dynamic, and the credible allegations of assault against him. I further didn't spend much time worrying about, or considering, the role of HRC in enabling his behavior and assault on the women victimized by her husband. And, while we're agreeing and whatnot, let's not forget that the political powers that be declared Clinton above the law as it related to perjury, and fully embraced the slippery language that he deftly displayed during his testimony. Turnabout is, indeed, fair play. 3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: In retrospect, the impeachment over the Ukraine matter was a mistake. I thought it was warranted at the time since it struck me (and still does) as a clear abuse of power. But strategically (particularly since he would never be impeached/removed from office) an error. The post-January 6 impeachment was necessary and appropriate, and it is shameful that Republican Senators did not vote in favor of impeachment. But that one exposed a flaw in the constitution: what do you do when the President commits a high crime or misdemeanor in the waning days of his presidency? Now with the Supreme Court's decision piling on, the answer is: nothing. He gets away with it if his party's Senators hold the line. It wasn't a mistake, it was an intentional (cynical, some would say) power play to destroy an administration. It was also part of a larger plan to destroy the President. As a stand alone, I might agree with you on the post-January 6 impeachment, but as a matter of common sense, it would be flat out silly to support impeachment. The dems had spent nearly 5 years declaring Trump guilty of treasonous behavior, been revealed to have surveilled their political opponents, unmasked American citizens, and spread election misinformation to divide the country. I cannot say for certain that 1/6 never occurs without democrats running the Russia scam, but I would suggest I might well look at it differently. Turnabout is fair play. 3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: January 6 was, again, not about the riot/"insurrection." It was about a radical reading of the powers of the Vice President to reject properly-certified electoral results from the states. The riot was about intimidating Mike Pence to do something he thought was beyond his powers. Good on Mike Pence. It really would have worked for Trump if Pence had done Trump's bidding. The only other check was the Supreme Court, and Lord knows what they'd have done. It was based on a cynical deliberate misreading of the VP's powers, which in turn was based on unproven (still to this date unproven) allegations of voter fraud. That Mike Pence didn't let this happen should be celebrated, not condemned. He allowed a critical norm to remain in place. I have referred to Mike Pence as one of the heroes of the day. Perhaps had the dem leadership had a Pence-ian figure urging restraint and common sense when they were spreading stories of treason, the whole mess could have been avoided. Instead, they spoke with one ugly, sustained, political voice for 5 years, and their base bought it. 3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: But you see what I'm saying. That in turn made it easier for the Democratic leaders to think outside the box, to look for a loophole of their own. And they found it. The primaries are, at their core, beauty contests. Those electors can switch to someone else if the pressure is sufficient and if there's time before the party certifies a candidate. I'm sure there were old school lawyers and Democratic leaders who said, "but we can't do that; that's contrary to everyone's understanding of how this process works, and it will lead to the same kind of pressures in the future, for us and for our opponents." That is a conservative view. It didn't hold. I can see what you're saying, but I think it reveals a naiveté that borders on pathological. 3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Don't be so quick to tear down those fences for immediate political gain. What fences? The ones erected by people who call others nazis, uneducated, treasonous, and who's claim to fame is their version of spreading distrust about our elections is way cooler than the other guy? No, thank you, Frank--I'd prefer those fences remain in place. For reasonable people who can see the duplicity of the argument on illegitimate elections (cool!) v stolen elections (scandalous!), there are no fences to tear down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 33 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said: I did no such thing, Sir! And I demand satisfaction for your dastardly imprecations! Excellent use of "alights" btw. It's why I write at a 5th grade level. Talk about a zinger! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4th&long Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 31 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: I have no evidence he is not making decisions? Frank the signature on his resignation letter is not his. This is not some crazy conspiracy, look at the signature on that letter and every other letter we can prove he signed, it is not his signature. That is evidence he is not making decisions. Mean there are a lot of *****en nuts on here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HomeskillitMoorman Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 (edited) I haven't been to this part of the board in monthsprobably....I shouldn't be surprised it's still a total cesspool and I've kind of stopped caring about all of this because I don't have a candidate to vote for...but the North Korea comps for our country are pretty funny when people making them are literally freely and publicly dissenting against mainstream media and the current political leaders of the country themselves and posting social media posts that anyone can see and fact check for themselves. Anyway, carry on! Edited July 23 by HomeskillitMoorman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted July 23 Author Share Posted July 23 Let’s go!!!!!!! Full North Korea! Clap for your masters clap dammit! 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irv Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 3 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: Let’s go!!!!!!! Full North Korea! Clap for your masters clap dammit! His speeches are about as effective as his gas grilling. What a mess. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 7 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Democrats had been bamboozled into believing Biden was in excellent shape to run the country over the next 4.5 years. Ready to handle the rigors of the office, the many challenges in the country, and perhaps most importantly the election against DJT and the “existential threat to democracy”. While it’s been clear to anyone not a true believer that he has been failing for several years, the dem leadership pressed on and the base placed their faith in the cause. In the end, it took a tired old man being bested by…words…to finally convince them his time had long passed. To get angry, they would be required to consider how they could have been fooled on such a massive scale. That sort of introspection is painful, and after all, democracy is allegedly at stake. So, they run with the next narrative offered, that JB is a good man who suddenly, as if by magic, has realized he’s no longer the right man to lead. It’s basic human nature, really. People are hesitant to acknowledge they were fooled. You're acting like they're idiots. Have they or were they fine just having the people around him push the buttons as long as he pushed their policies with the assumption he would be the best candidate to beat Trump? Why wouldn't they since he beat him in 2020 when Hillary couldn't four years earlier. Then the debate changed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 (edited) 4 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Fair enough, though that allegation did not include declarations of treason, either. I was not a fan of the Whitewater probe, was young enough to think it was a personal matter only. I knew nothing of Clinton's proclivity toward sexual predation, power dynamic, and the credible allegations of assault against him. I further didn't spend much time worrying about, or considering, the role of HRC in enabling his behavior and assault on the women victimized by her husband. And, while we're agreeing and whatnot, let's not forget that the political powers that be declared Clinton above the law as it related to perjury, and fully embraced the slippery language that he deftly displayed during his testimony. Turnabout is, indeed, fair play. It wasn't a mistake, it was an intentional (cynical, some would say) power play to destroy an administration. It was also part of a larger plan to destroy the President. As a stand alone, I might agree with you on the post-January 6 impeachment, but as a matter of common sense, it would be flat out silly to support impeachment. The dems had spent nearly 5 years declaring Trump guilty of treasonous behavior, been revealed to have surveilled their political opponents, unmasked American citizens, and spread election misinformation to divide the country. I cannot say for certain that 1/6 never occurs without democrats running the Russia scam, but I would suggest I might well look at it differently. Turnabout is fair play. I have referred to Mike Pence as one of the heroes of the day. Perhaps had the dem leadership had a Pence-ian figure urging restraint and common sense when they were spreading stories of treason, the whole mess could have been avoided. Instead, they spoke with one ugly, sustained, political voice for 5 years, and their base bought it. I can see what you're saying, but I think it reveals a naiveté that borders on pathological. What fences? The ones erected by people who call others nazis, uneducated, treasonous, and who's claim to fame is their version of spreading distrust about our elections is way cooler than the other guy? No, thank you, Frank--I'd prefer those fences remain in place. For reasonable people who can see the duplicity of the argument on illegitimate elections (cool!) v stolen elections (scandalous!), there are no fences to tear down. 1. The ones that say the Executive Power is limited. The fact that you have a pen and a phone doesn't change that, Mr. Obama. 2. The ones that say the Vice President performs a ministerial function, counting the electoral votes submitted by official state certificates. 3. The ones that say protests are fine, but protests that significantly disrupt the business of Congress cross the line into illegality, and that sitting Presidents egging on such protesters have violated their oath of office. 4. The ones that say that Supreme Court justices ought to recuse from cases directly related to the activities and prodding of their spouses, Justice Thomas. 5. The ones that say that candidates are selected through a primary process, and that this should be respected unless the candidate with the most electoral votes is physically/mentally unable to serve. 6. The ones that say that sitting Presidents should be very careful to avoid prodding foreign powers to investigate their political opponents. 7. The ones that say that sitting Presidents and Attorney Generals should avoid having any prosecutorial discretion/decision-making in matters involving their political opponents or family members or close associates. Oh, and a special one for @JDHillFan - 8. The ones that say that people in elected office or appearing in a formal political setting (on the floor of Congress, giving a speech in your official capacity, at a political convention) ought to dress in a manner that is respectful of the forum and of the people they represent or seek to represent, (see "Business Attire"), Mr. Fetterman and Ms. Guilfoyle. Edited July 23 by The Frankish Reich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rusty shackleford Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 Biden’s removal captured on film: 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 16 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: 1. The ones that say the Executive Power is limited. The fact that you have a pen and a phone doesn't change that, Mr. Obama. 2. The ones that say the Vice President performs a ministerial function, counting the electoral votes submitted by official state certificates. 3. The ones that say protests are fine, but protests that significantly disrupt the business of Congress cross the line into illegality, and that sitting Presidents egging on such protesters have violated their oath of office. 4. The ones that say that Supreme Court justices ought to recuse from cases directly related to the activities and prodding of their spouses, Justice Thomas. 5. The ones that say that candidates are selected through a primary process, and that this should be respected unless the candidate with the most electoral votes is physically/mentally unable to serve. 6. The ones that say that sitting Presidents should be very careful to avoid prodding foreign powers to investigate their political opponents. 7. The ones that say that sitting Presidents and Attorney Generals should avoid having any prosecutorial discretion/decision-making in matters involving their political opponents or family members or close associates. Oh, and a special one for @JDHillFan - 8. The ones that say that people in elected office or appearing in a formal political setting (on the floor of Congress, giving a speech in your official capacity, at a political convention) ought to dress in a manner that is respectful of the forum and of the people they represent or seek to represent, (see "Business Attire"), Mr. Fetterman and Ms. Guilfoyle. You sh*t on Meghan Kelly, a podcaster, for her hair, Dog Killer, an actual elected official for the same, and Tulsi Gabbard, a commentator/instagrammer for her complexion. That’s weird, especially so for someone of your age, but nobody is telling you not to show your “personality” in that way. You seem to want to turn your prior comments about those ladies into “people should dress respectfully in the capital and in official settings”. No need to be disingenuous now as you have already indicated some level of pride in your previous comments. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 3 hours ago, Doc Brown said: You're acting like they're idiots. Have they or were they fine just having the people around him push the buttons as long as he pushed their policies with the assumption he would be the best candidate to beat Trump? Why wouldn't they since he beat him in 2020 when Hillary couldn't four years earlier. Then the debate changed that. Let’s start with the obvious. Dem leadership ran with Biden in spite of his clearly deteriorating mental/cognitive/physical state because they thought he was the best person to win the election. They shielded that from voters to the extent they could, and I don’t think the debate “changed” things so much as revealed what they were hiding. As for “idiots”, that’s not my characterization. People will convince themselves of just about anything, and my point was simply that acknowledging their leadership had been lying to them all along would require an acknowledgment they were duped. That’s not how most hard core supporters are going to react…they just move on and vote party line. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 3 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: 1. The ones that say the Executive Power is limited. The fact that you have a pen and a phone doesn't change that, Mr. Obama. 2. The ones that say the Vice President performs a ministerial function, counting the electoral votes submitted by official state certificates. 3. The ones that say protests are fine, but protests that significantly disrupt the business of Congress cross the line into illegality, and that sitting Presidents egging on such protesters have violated their oath of office. 4. The ones that say that Supreme Court justices ought to recuse from cases directly related to the activities and prodding of their spouses, Justice Thomas. 5. The ones that say that candidates are selected through a primary process, and that this should be respected unless the candidate with the most electoral votes is physically/mentally unable to serve. 6. The ones that say that sitting Presidents should be very careful to avoid prodding foreign powers to investigate their political opponents. 7. The ones that say that sitting Presidents and Attorney Generals should avoid having any prosecutorial discretion/decision-making in matters involving their political opponents or family members or close associates. Oh, and a special one for @JDHillFan - 8. The ones that say that people in elected office or appearing in a formal political setting (on the floor of Congress, giving a speech in your official capacity, at a political convention) ought to dress in a manner that is respectful of the forum and of the people they represent or seek to represent, (see "Business Attire"), Mr. Fetterman and Ms. Guilfoyle. All cool, and when you can get both/all parties to agree to follow those guidelines, let me know. You can add this to the list of things that include surveilling political opponents, utilizing the Intelligence Community to make one-off declarations that turn out to be untrue and impact elections, figure out some sensible approach to safeguarding our classified documents and nations secrets to avoid the appearance of impropriety, launch character assassination campaigns to destroy SC nominees and send a message to those that might one day follow. Until then, I prefer to deal with things as they are, as they exist…not how they play out in your pinko fantasy world, Judy Blume. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4th&long Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 These two going out in style! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 4 hours ago, JDHillFan said: You sh*t on Meghan Kelly, a podcaster, for her hair, Dog Killer, an actual elected official for the same, and Tulsi Gabbard, a commentator/instagrammer for her complexion. That’s weird, especially so for someone of your age, but nobody is telling you not to show your “personality” in that way. You seem to want to turn your prior comments about those ladies into “people should dress respectfully in the capital and in official settings”. No need to be disingenuous now as you have already indicated some level of pride in your previous comments. Not to mention Dems critiquing Repub women's look is funny just on the face of it (pun intended). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 On 7/22/2024 at 8:12 PM, Big Blitz said: ABSOLUTELY ZERO of the crap just posted is remotely on par with a coup to force out “all in Joe” in late July AFTER winning the primary as we go into August because his polls suck vs the “felon” you were supposed to have jailed - or killed by now. Disgraceful and shades of a third world ***t hole like the state Harris is from - a state she didn’t even win in her 2020 primary. Didn’t Montell the right people. But DEI saved her career. Along with her unique set of skills. It’s all the same!!! L O freaking L Loser communists. North Korea On 7/22/2024 at 8:28 PM, Big Blitz said: Not interested. Who’s her VP??? Let's see... racist DEI attacks check Conspiracy theory that Biden is actually dead check You wanna throw in the "she doesn't have kids and is a crazy cat mom!" argument? I bet someone has posted the fake pic of her with Jeffrey Epstein or any of the other deep fakes already circulation in the right wing trash social media. Wanna jump behind your man Trump who won't be able to get out of his own way with a woman of color as an opponent. "She speaks in rhyme" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 The left has done a good job moving the narrative back to "orange man bad, orange man supporters bad". And the new. Any talk about Harris is racist or sexist. And the only narrative about Harris is her race and sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 16 hours ago, JDHillFan said: You sh*t on Meghan Kelly, a podcaster, for her hair, Dog Killer, an actual elected official for the same, and Tulsi Gabbard, a commentator/instagrammer for her complexion. That’s weird, especially so for someone of your age, but nobody is telling you not to show your “personality” in that way. You seem to want to turn your prior comments about those ladies into “people should dress respectfully in the capital and in official settings”. No need to be disingenuous now as you have already indicated some level of pride in your previous comments. Oooh, someone has a thing for the Trump Girls ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts