Kyle Rittenhouse attempted to join the Marine Corps in January,

Doc Dutch said:
First, let's not forget that Trump had a Republican trifecta until he decided to torpedo any House Republicans who didn't suck kiss his ring in 2018 thus giving the fucking Democrats control of the House by letting them gain over 40 seats.

Second, the Senate was still Republican controlled.

Why do you not know this?
Click to expand...

I do know that, however, I also know that for all of the Republican bullshit of reversing the ACA/Obamacare, the time when they had the power to do so, they didn't even touch it. That tells me that the Republicans, just like the Democrats, have zero interest in actually doing things that would help the American people. They are simply more interested in pitting American against American.

why do you not know this?
 
Walt said:
You would be wrong. There are two houses of Congress, with Pelosi only being the leader of one of them. The house of Congress that ran the show, The Senate, was controlled by the Republicans.
Click to expand...

For all of the hubris that some of you show in believing that you know so much about how government works, you're obviously full of hot air. Pelosi, as speaker of the house, is the one in charge. She is responsible for the capitol police and their provision of security for that entire building.

This shouldn't be that difficult for most of you. You do appear, sometimes, to show a good amount of intelligence, yet you constantly fail yourselves because you're too interested in one upping the 'other side'.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Pelosi, as speaker of the house, is the one in charge. She is responsible for the capitol police and their provision of security for that entire building.
Click to expand...

That is simply not true. The House and the Senate are co-equal authorities. To break the tie, the Architect of the Capitol is called in. He is nominated by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. So Republicans had the majority of the control.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I do know that, however, I also know that for all of the Republican bullshit of reversing the ACA/Obamacare, the time when they had the power to do so, they didn't even touch it. That tells me that the Republicans, just like the Democrats, have zero interest in actually doing things that would help the American people. They are simply more interested in pitting American against American.

why do you not know this?
Click to expand...
I do know it which is why I vote Libertarian, not for Democrats much less a clown-faced oath-breaking traitor.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I do know that, however, I also know that for all of the Republican bullshit of reversing the ACA/Obamacare, the time when they had the power to do so, they didn't even touch it. That tells me that the Republicans, just like the Democrats, have zero interest in actually doing things that would help the American people. They are simply more interested in pitting American against American.

why do you not know this?
Click to expand...

one party is clearly having divisiveness as their only message and one is actually somewhat actually America first.

but I know finding no distinction is the cool thing.....
 
Doc Dutch said:
I do know it which is why I vote Libertarian, not for Democrats much less a clown-faced oath-breaking traitor.
Click to expand...

By voting Libertarian, you're not doing the most that you can to beat Donald Trump.
It's a statement that beating Donald Trump is NOT your first priority.

That's your prerogative, of course, as long as you own it.
 
Walt said:
Prohibition greatly reduced drinking culture in America. Construction workers used to take whiskey breaks, and now take water breaks. It used to be acceptable for high school students to be falling down drunk. We went from a culture that drank whiskey all day, every day, to a culture that drank beer on the weekends.

With drugs (including alcohol) there appears to be a middle ground. The problem is that middle ground is ever changing. Legalize heroin, and at first there is harm reduction. The death rates plummets. Then it becomes out of control, and a huge number of lives are destroyed. Outlaw heroin, and the number of heroin users begins falling, but then can shoot up decades later. The death rate gradually drops, but then shoots up as harm reduction is reduced.

I have not seen the magic bullet.

And there is always the moral question to all this. What right do I have to tell people how they can live their lives? Do I have the right to tell the cancer patient who will be dead in a month that she cannot use all the painkillers she wants? If no, do I have the right to tell the 80 year old man he cannot use all the painkillers he wants? How about the healthy 20 year old? Some would argue it is all their lives, and while I can advice, I cannot force.
Click to expand...

the problem with what they did in Oregon were also not enforcing vagrancy laws.

if you can't sober up enough to move along in the morning, there needs to be intervention.

common sense old timey notions are often just perfect.

Officer O'Malley gives you a chance to move along, and iffin youse can't do that, you need lockup, and maybe a rehab stint.

why did democrats destroy this common sense measure.

oh to purposefully degrade society and force totalitarianism?

well you don't say......
 
NiftyNiblick said:
By voting Libertarian, you're not doing the most that you can to beat Donald Trump.
It's a statement that beating Donald Trump is NOT your first priority.

That's your prerogative, of course, as long as you own it.
Click to expand...

libertarians are the most illuminati, though they refuse to think about it long enough to change.
 
why can't libertarians acknowledge that corporations love repression too, rendering GONZO PRIVATIZATION really not the panacea they pretend it is?
 
Walt said:
Prohibition greatly reduced drinking culture in America. Construction workers used to take whiskey breaks, and now take water breaks. It used to be acceptable for high school students to be falling down drunk. We went from a culture that drank whiskey all day, every day, to a culture that drank beer on the weekends.

With drugs (including alcohol) there appears to be a middle ground. The problem is that middle ground is ever changing. Legalize heroin, and at first there is harm reduction. The death rates plummets. Then it becomes out of control, and a huge number of lives are destroyed. Outlaw heroin, and the number of heroin users begins falling, but then can shoot up decades later. The death rate gradually drops, but then shoots up as harm reduction is reduced.

I have not seen the magic bullet.

And there is always the moral question to all this. What right do I have to tell people how they can live their lives? Do I have the right to tell the cancer patient who will be dead in a month that she cannot use all the painkillers she wants? If no, do I have the right to tell the 80 year old man he cannot use all the painkillers he wants? How about the healthy 20 year old? Some would argue it is all their lives, and while I can advice, I cannot force.
Click to expand...
There's one vote for Prohibition! LOL Sorry, while I believe what you say is true, I disagree with all powerful governments dictating what is best for us. Protect minors, protect people from unscrupulous people, including businesses and local governments (e.g. Flint, MI) and stop criminals. Leave innocent American voters alone.

Agreed there is no magic bullet, but there is science. Curing smallpox and polio once seemed impossible. Now it's preventable. Why do people drink to excess? Why do they take drugs? Medical and psychological research should be able to find the reasons and provide solutions. All it takes is focus on finding answers, not just passing laws that oppress the innocent.

You have no right to dictate to cancer patients, 80 year old or 20 year olds, but you can advocate for offering help in the form of alternatives or treatment. Simply dictating "No, you can't" isn't a solution that fosters freedom, liberty and equality.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
By voting Libertarian, you're not doing the most that you can to beat Donald Trump.
It's a statement that beating Donald Trump is NOT your first priority.

That's your prerogative, of course, as long as you own it.
Click to expand...
I'm not voting for Trump. If you have problem with Trump you have two choices: provide better alternative candidates or persuade the Trump voters to vote otherwise.

Oppressive assholes blaming me for Trump's election over Hillary because I didn't vote for Hillary are the reason why I don't vote Democrat. Provide better candidates or go bother someone else with your dictatorial bullshit.
 
Doc Dutch said:
I'm not voting for Trump. If you have problem with Trump you have two choices: provide better alternative candidates or persuade the Trump voters to vote otherwise.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about having a problem with Trump, Oom.
I'm talking about doing the most that you can to prevent his election.

Joe Biden is the ONLY candidate that has a realistic chance of beating Trump.
If you DON"T vote for Joe Biden, you're NOT doing the most you can to defeat Donald Trump.
That's irrefutable mathematics.

If defeating Trump is your first priority, voting for Biden is the only logical move.


If you cast a protest vote for a non-viable candidate, fine,
but you MUST live with the fact that you're not doing the most that you can to defeat Trump.

That applies to not voting at all as well.

I wouldn't be able to live with that.
Obviously, you don't feel the same.
Again, for better or worse, that's your prerogative.

I will admit this much, however. Trump is going to win Texas and Biden is going to win Massachusetts no matter what the hell we do.
Those of us in certain-result states perhaps have the opportunity to make a statement vote.

The only statement I want to make is that I'm doing the best that I can to defeat Trump.
Very important issues take a back burner to that right now.
 
Doc Dutch said:
You obviously have a problem with Trump if you are arm-twisting people to vote for your candidate, neef.
Click to expand...


I do have a big problem with Trump, but my point wasn't that.
It was whether or not one was doing the most to stop him.

Voting for Biden, whether you like him or not, is what one has to do if stopping Trump is the first priority.
If one does anything else, then stopping Trump was clearly NOT his/her first priority.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I do have a big problem with Trump, but my point wasn't that.
It was whether or not one was doing the most to stop him.

Voting for Biden, whether you like him or not, is what one has to do if stopping Trump is the first priority.
If one does anything else, then stopping Trump was clearly NOT his/her first priority.
Click to expand...

I get your point and agree, if the person considering voting for the (L) (or other alternative to (D) and (R)) candidate lives in a swing state. Texas is not one of them, so basically Dutch's vote doesn't count no matter who he casts it for. We need to get rid of the electoral college. As it is, a handful of states decide who is POTUS. The rest of the country's votes are meaningless except as a personal gesture.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I get your point and agree, if the person considering voting for the (L) (or other alternative to (D) and (R)) candidate lives in a swing state. Texas is not one of them, so basically Dutch's vote doesn't count no matter who he casts it for. We need to get rid of the electoral college. As it is, a handful of states decide who is POTUS. The rest of the country's votes are meaningless except as a personal gesture.
Click to expand...

your conclusions drawn from the existence of swing states are retarded and assinine.

probably your globalist libertarians friends will keep blowing smoke up your dumb ass though.

they're simps too.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I get your point and agree, if the person considering voting for the (L) (or other alternative to (D) and (R)) candidate lives in a swing state. Texas is not one of them, so basically Dutch's vote doesn't count no matter who he casts it for. We need to get rid of the electoral college. As it is, a handful of states decide who is POTUS. The rest of the country's votes are meaningless except as a personal gesture.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree 100% about the electoral college, but that's not a small change.
That's effectively incorporating a brand new nation.

Our fakakta federal system IS the government that the founders put out for us.

People seem to think that I badmouth the Constitution just to be a controversial prick.
This is the kind of thing about which I'm talking.

The Constitution is primarily the new government that it created,
NOT the inspiring preamble or the amendments protecting our rights.

Given the level of consensus it requires for amending, in this polarized nation, we may never see another amendment.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I certainly agree 100% about the electoral college, but that's not a small change.
That's effectively incorporating a brand new nation.

Our fakakta federal system IS the government that the founders put out for us.

People seem to think that I badmouth the Constitution just to be a controversial prick.
This is the kind of thing about which I'm talking.

The Constitution is primarily the new government that it created,
NOT the inspiring preamble or the amendments protecting our rights.

Given the level of consensus it requires for amending, in this polarized nation, we may never see another amendment.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I expect that you are right about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top