Post-Trump GOP

OUBubba said:
You may be right. Or she may stick to her far left agenda and go back to bartending. I wonder if anyone has ever asked her if she reported all of her cash income when she was a bartender. Get her @doocy!
Click to expand...

She's not going to go back to bartending. People who have **** jobs and get good ones don't go back to the **** job if they don't have to. It's the same reason I'll never go back to being an inventory worker at Montgomery Ward again. If she left Congress, she'd most likely go to work for a media outlet or a special interest group of some kind. She'd move to California and do porn before she'd tend bar again.
 
horninchicago said:
I guess anything is possible if he's on a meth bender.

:fiestanana:
Click to expand...

He's on the meth bender, and the standards just aren't very high. She's got her teeth, walks upright, and has opposable thumbs. If you've got those things going for you, then you look pretty damn good in Oklahoma.
 
Mr. Deez said:
He's on the meth bender, and the standards just aren't very high. She's got her teeth, walks upright, and has opposable thumbs. If you've got those things going for you, then you look pretty damn good in Oklahoma.
Click to expand...
She fits into my paradigm - seen better, had worse.
 
So SloJo is definitely low hanging fruit right now and the GOP odds are looking better and better. Trump brings some positives but a whole lot of negatives if he runs again. Are you Trump acolytes ready to roll the dice on a 78 yr old POTUS next time around? Trump will most likely have the clout to win the primary but can he still carry a general against an incumbent Joe? He certainly won't be able to wait and run in 2028 so it is 2024 or never for a 2nd Trump term. or do you think he just tries to play kingmaker in the wings? Personally I still have my doubts about Trump as the team player/party leader. I still don't think he has the capacity to play for the GOP vs. playing for Trump.
 
Mr. Deez said:
But you can be an insurrectionist and not be violent 100 percent of the time. The degree of violence isn't what makes someone an insurrectionist.
Click to expand...

Holy ****, Deez. It was not an insurrection. None of the violent protests in America were insurrections except for the CHAZ situation.
 
Mr. Deez said:
But you can be an insurrectionist and not be violent 100 percent of the time. The degree of violence isn't what makes someone an insurrectionist.
Click to expand...
according to the interwebs (Oxford):
a violent uprising against an authority or government.
"the insurrection was savagely put down"
 
I need to see vids of the violent actions, the fires, the destruction of the Jan 6 "insurrection". You know same stuff that happened at countless BLM protests and Seattle's summer streeet fair,
 
mchammer said:
according to the interwebs (Oxford):
a violent uprising against an authority or government.
"the insurrection was savagely put down"
Click to expand...

Right, violence is necessary, but one doesn't have to be violent the entire time. After you break into the building and storm past the police, you can be very peaceful while you're sitting in the Speaker's chair and still be an insurrectionist.

(By the way, I don't deny that the government's argument that the video should be sealed was ********.)
 
Garmel said:
An aim to overthrow the government.
Click to expand...

Not to be a douche, but what makes something an aim to overthrow the government? The reason why I ask is that I think we need to look at the aims of those involved. A distinction is in order. I'm not referring to those who went to the Trump rally and even those who protested without breaking laws outside the Capitol. They had every right to be where they were and to do what they did. They aren't insurrectionists. They're peaceful protestors with whom I disagree.

I'm referring to those who illegally entered the building, caused property damaged, assaulted people, and caused lawmakers to flee. What was their aim? Wasn't it to stop the electoral count or get Pence to reject the results? That would have been an overthrow. If it wasn't their aim, then why were they there? It was more than just seeking to speak and protest. Those who were at the rally and outside were already doing that.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Right, violence is necessary, but one doesn't have to be violent the entire time. After you break into the building and storm past the police, you can be very peaceful while you're sitting in the Speaker's chair and still be an insurrectionist.

(By the way, I don't deny that the government's argument that the video should be sealed was ********.)
Click to expand...
Okay, but you followed with “degree of violence” which I disagree. There has to be at least one point in the timeline that there is violence or a very real threat of violence.

The point of the video is to show that out of the 500k in DC that day, I think 500 breached the capitol, and I think all but 50 were non-violent. Further I would like to know what the 50 wanted to do. Delay the vote or overthrow the government? I bet the former, not the latter for the most part. Finally, I saw an estimate of capital damage that was $1.5m vs $1.0-2.0b for the blm riots (1000x worse). Just saying if you want to call the Jan 6 riot an insurrection then the blm riots were much worse.
 
Mr. Deez said:
What was their aim? Wasn't it to stop the electoral count or get Pence to reject the results? That would have been an overthrow. If it wasn't their aim, then why were they there? It was more than just seeking to speak and protest. Those who were at the rally and outside were already doing that.
Click to expand...
Answering these questions requires an honest press, which we do not possess but it doesn’t stop the media from calling it an insurrection
 
Mr. Deez said:
What was their aim? Wasn't it to stop the electoral count or get Pence to reject the results? That would have been an overthrow. If it wasn't their aim, then why were they there? It was more than just seeking to speak and protest. Those who were at the rally and outside were already doing that.
Click to expand...

Delaying the vote as a form of protest is what they have seemed to be doing. If they had guns I could see your point. They were there to cause chaos in the process, not to actually overthrow the government.
 
mchammer said:
Okay, but you followed with “degree of violence” which I disagree. There has to be at least one point in the timeline that there is violence or a very real threat of violence.

The point of the video is to show that out of the 500k in DC that day, I think 500 breached the capitol, and I think all but 50 were non-violent. Further I would like to know what the 50 wanted to do. Delay the vote or overthrow the government? I bet the former, not the latter for the most part. Finally, I saw an estimate of capital damage that was $1.5m vs $1.0-2.0b for the blm riots (1000x worse).
Click to expand...

I stand by my comment. The degree of violence isn't the issue. It's the presence of violence and its use along with the intent of those committing it that matters. $1.5M in property damage (which sounds low to me) is violence.

mchammer said:
Just saying if you want to call the Jan 6 riot an insurrection then the blm riots were much worse.
Click to expand...

I would agree that they were worse. They caused more damage and injured more people. However, they were different in goal and tactic. It's somewhat of an apples to oranges comparison.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I would agree that they were worse. They caused more damage and injured more people. However, they were different in goal and tactic. It's somewhat of an apples to oranges comparison.
Click to expand...

Actually the goal of BLM is to overthrow not just the government but everything in society including families. They are fighting an insurrection against reality and they believe they are righteous in doing so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top