Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
PL: A state isn’t its population? So to take your example to the extreme (it’s already quite extreme though), hypothetically if just two guys lived in the other 49 states you think all 98 of them should get Senate Seats and Congressional votes. And 98 people should be able to set the laws, budget, etc. for 300 million people in another state? They would win the electoral college too, I believe, and would be able to appoint a President and all the Supreme Court justices.
As you know, that would be an oligarchy under the guise of “democracy”.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
-
Do you believe that, if California had 99 percent of the country’s population, that California should be able to make laws for the rest of the country?
Of course, because effectively there would be no “rest of the country”. Dirt doesn’t get a vote. All those maps showing some huge swath of red states are highly misleading.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
I Try not to criticize when a politician does the right thing,.. he also wore a mask this week end. Let’s give him shit about that.
When a child makes pee pee in the toilet for the first time everyone cheers. So yeah, I guess better late than never. But it would have been nice if he had done it before 135,000 Americans died.
And I’d bet money he will soon revert to his usual behavior. I suspect someone just finally told him he couldn’t come in without a mask. I guess we’ll find out at his next super-spreader event (rally).
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
Roscoe, don’t you know you can’t appoint a Supreme Court justice during an election year? /s
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
[quote quote=1174]Ironic. The anti-Catholic bias of the Democratic Party has become so intense that JFK could not be nominated these days.[/quote]
I don’t think that’s entirely true. Democrats tend to have some differing views on things like abortion, but I never got the sense they are anti-Catholic. Joe Biden is Catholic, Nancy Pelosi is Catholic, John Kerry is Catholic, and a recent poll suggested that Democrats are far more supportive of the current Pope than Republicans. I agree that Catholics aren’t one of the primary groups in the Democrats wheelhouse, so to speak, but I don’t see an anti-Catholic attitude. If you had said Evangelicals, on the other hand, I would probably agree with you.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
[quote quote=1079][quote quote=1076]I think a big partof it is reaction to Trump”s “what, me worry” bullshit. He won’t sound ANY alarm. Acts as if it’s just an annoyance that will go away.[/quote] lex, your prejudices are coloring your judgment.[/quote]
Trump literally said what Lex is suggesting. From an interview on Fox the other day:
“I think we’re going to be very good with the coronavirus,” Trump said. “I think that, at some point, that’s going to sort of disappear, I hope.”
“You still believe so?” replied Burman. “Disappear?”“Well, I do, I do,” Trump replied. “Yeah, sure.”
This is consistent with his initial claims about the virus back in the early days:
“We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. It’s going to be just fine.” (January 22nd)
“I think the virus is going to be—it’s going to be fine… Looks like by April, you know in theory when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away.” (February 10th).
“The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA” (Feb 24th)
“The 15 (cases in the US) within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero.”
“It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.” (Feb 27)
Source (with a much bigger summary): https://doggett.house.gov/media-center/blog-posts/timeline-trump-s-coronavirus-responses
Trump has done a few reasonable things and some unreasonable things. But regardless of the specifics, he has shown zero leadership on exactly what Lex is saying. He refuses to wear a mask in public, projects that it’s no big deal, and allows masks to be optional at his rallies.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
Lex, I really didn’t follow too closely but it sounds like the mayor handled it badly and should pay in the next election.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
I don’t really follow the mainstream media much, but to the extent I heard anything about CHAZ (aka CHOP) it came across as a pretty insane and dangerous thing. I didn’t need CNN to explain that to me. No doubt it had some supporters, but I’m willing to bet most people on the left in Seattle thought it was crazy, as well.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
Polls are starting to look really bad for the President. Looks like he’ll have to start a war or major conflict to win. Don’t put it past him!
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
paraphrasing
RJ: this is so normal and obvious that it would negligence if administrations weren’t aware and prepared.
Rocky: this is all such bs. I can’t believe anyone would believe it.
The bases are definitely covered between the two of you.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
[quote quote=853]If trump did something, does it need to be public?[/quote]
Trump has no problem publicly denouncing, rebuking, mocking, and criticizing our allies, fellow Republicans, Congressional leaders, Supreme Court members, a large number of former members of his own administration, Admirals, Generals, war heroes, medal winners, and pretty much anyone across the spectrum of good and bad, friend or foe.
but this will all be forgotten, like everything else, as soon as Trump does his next idiotic thing — like retweeting a white power video.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
Make sure you’re on the Current Events Board (not the welcome page or some other part of the site from where you might have clicked a link to a topic). Scroll all the way down. Below all the topics you’ll see something that says “Create New Topic in “Current Events Board””.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
That’s a fair question PL (whether they should be able to sell books), but it’s a different issue than whether the allegations are true. Whether you agree with him or not Bolton and many of these other folks aren’t known for making stuff up. And yet as soon as they criticize Trump suddenly they can’t be trusted.
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
I’m curious which angle Rocky will take this time:
- Deep state
- Never Trumper
- Ad hominem
- Book Deal
My money is on number 4 this time, with a dash of number 3.
It’s amazing how many of the former administration officials go on to recount the incompetence and corruption. It reminds me of the old adage, if every room you walk into smells like shit you should probably check your shoes. It’s hypothetically possible that everyone else is corrupt and Trump is actually just the victim. But it’s far more likely he stinks.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 4 months ago by .
When you understand "the deep state" simply refers to the rule of law, it makes much more sense.
-
