ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Can't help you other than this:

Oriental is a rug, not a "people" Not sure if it's a food, or even a geographic area (Orient) of the globe. But it's definitely still a rug.

So THEY tell me.
I'd like to see him call an Asian "Oriental" to their face... they'd be on full blast in a nanosecond
 
I get that, but you might draw an eager beaver DA. My first thought would be to neutralize the threat, without picking up a murder charge. That is why ambiguity in these laws is dangerous.
 
If I owned a ranch in the southwest, and the federal government was sponsoring an invasion whereby some unvetted, fighting age invaders may end up on my property for whatever reason, I’d hope my state government would pass laws allowing me to protect myself before people were actually inside my home.
 
I get that, but you might draw an eager beaver DA. My first thought would be to neutralize the threat, without picking up a murder charge. That is why ambiguity in these laws is dangerous.
I see why you might fear that in today's world, but a smaller target (particularly if it is moving) is harder to hit than a larger one. If you miss, the intruder may not worry so much about charges. If you pull your weapon, you must 100% know you have it in your heart to take a life. Threats are dangerous and may only escalate the situation.
 
I have an honest question. Not trying to pick a fight with Dem's or Rep's.

It's pretty obvious that inflation has skyrocketed the past 2 years, that much of the job market has shrunk resulting in pay in many areas flat compared to pre-Covid.
Whether fair or not, the President always gets the blame/credit for the economy while he is in office. And it's indisputable that Biden's mental clarity is not where you would hope it would be for a World Leader, and his age is way past any other past President, so that concern is only going to get bigger probably quite rapidly. And related to that, I don't think much of the American public has much confidence in the VP based on the many ridiculous things she has said the past 4 years.
Meanwhile the other party is apparently tossing in the same person who was unable to beat this person 4 years ago. What do they think is going to be different? Yes Biden is even older, but so is Trump who would become the 2nd oldest President (if elected) only younger than Biden. Wouldn't there be a big risk of a similar decline by him? Also, in my 50+ years, there have been 2 candidates who IMO a very large % of the public were of the opinion "any one but him/her". And those 2 candidates just happened to run against each other in 2016 (so one of them had to win), yes Trump and Hilary. Winning the primaries often means you went far enough away from center to get the votes of the fringe voters. Then in the main election you must get a good chunk of the middle two-thirds. I said in 2016, had either party voted in a different candidate (literally ANYONE ELSE) in the primaries, then the general election would have been a landslide win for that candidate. I voted for neither (left President blank). But I do have to admit Trump did not do as bad as I had feared he would. But regardless, BOTH will be OLD from 2025-2028 with declining mental faculties.
So, all of that leads me to wonder WHY both of these guys are winning, nearly unopposed? When it almost seems to me, that in the General Election, either side could increase their chances of winning by having almost anyone else run vs the other guy.

So, whether you are planning to vote for Biden or Trump, are you voting for that Person, or for that Party, or against the other Person/Party?

And my last question. I've seen that Haley is staying in the race. How likely is it that she is doing so to (not be Trump's VP pick) in case Trump is found to not legally be able to be on the Nov ballot, hoping the Rep Convention then chooses her (as the only non-drop-out)? And how possible do you think that could be (Trump not allowed on Nov ballot) to happen?
 
431477482_351694654521753_8212342353258145494_n.jpg
 
I see why you might fear that in today's world, but a smaller target (particularly if it is moving) is harder to hit than a larger one. If you miss, the intruder may not worry so much about charges. If you pull your weapon, you must 100% know you have it in your heart to take a life. Threats are dangerous and may only escalate the situation.
Yeah, it's tricky, but that's why I stressed that ambiguous laws pull your teeth. I'm operating on the assumption that maybe they made a mistake, and are not on the property with malicious intent, but either way, they ARE a threat, because of the reasons I outlined earlier. You make valid points though.
 
Here you go. “Election fortification” on the way.


Why don't you count the votes in a transparent and orderly fashion, like Florida, and get your results in by 11:30 PM, like they manage to do in states with higher populations than yours do?

Problem solved, you nitwits.

the RNC needs to stage operatives and attorneys at critical places in: Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, MIchigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. Just set up camp, four weeks before the election. And start litigating to have full access to all stored ballot locations, and the ability to document the number of ballots submitted, on a running basis, and to have full and free knowledge of all ballot drop off locations, so they can independently verify where all the ballots are coming from. (And access to the updated registered voter rolls, so the number of votes counted, doesn't exceed the number of registered voters)

Nobody that is interested in free and fair elections should have ANY problem, whatsoever with that.
 
Last edited:
Now that the Biden admin is forming its corporate greed task force, a tacit acknowledgement that US families are struggling with Bidenomics, I wonder how long it will be before the Biden admin decides to stop faking economic numbers for headlines then revising them down when no one is looking, the admin starts blaming the Fed for high rates hurting the economy, and sambowieshin is told the economy does actually suck and he should stop parroting the message that it’s great.
 
While I do agree, some stranger on your land with a gun parading about, be they hunting or not, is not generally a good idea. I sure in shit wouldn't do it, because if some owner did shoot my ass, I would halfway not be surprised.

It most certainly is not a good idea. In rural Kentucky it happens often when hunting because you typically don't know who owns what. People also typically don't care as long as its done safely. There are definitely exceptions though. Not completely unusual to be met by a very unhappy property owner because you unknowingly crossed over to his property despite it being just woods.

An armed stranger, on your property; property he probably isn't familiar with, IMO, presents a real and present danger to the rightful owners of that property. That hunter doesn't know if your kids/family are out and about/playing on that property, doesn't know the layout of it, doesn't know if there is a house within rifle shot. Not saying you drop him with a head shot, but a stern verbal warning, and then, if the arms don't raise in supplication, aim for the kneecap. that is entirely appropriate.

All predicated on you clearly marking the boundaries of your property (as much as reasonably/prudently possible), with warnings that they are now trespassing, and they NEED to do a 180 and leave.)

A real and present danger in what way? Does a hiker deserve to be shot because they crossed onto someone's land. I'm as anti illegal as anyone, but you can't start arguing for summary execution. That's falling into the very trap laid by the misleading MSM headline.
 
Yeah, it's tricky, but that's why I stressed that ambiguous laws pull your teeth. I'm operating on the assumption that maybe they made a mistake, and are not on the property with malicious intent, but either way, they ARE a threat, because of the reasons I outlined earlier. You make valid points though.
Yes, we live in a weird world. Studies have shown that in shots fired situations involving trained officers, they only hit their target in the 30 to 35% range. Darkness, stress of the situation, do I really want to, moving targets, etc all contribute to the low %.
 
I don’t mind the corporate greed task force. Corps pay McKinsey and other consultancies to figure out how to f over customers. And since you leftists beat Christianity and morality out of our country, the only authority left is the government. Everyone is now taking full advantage of everything without thinking of others (see college conference realignment), and without guardrails you’ll have madness.

Of course the government will f things up, but I don’t mind them putting caps on late payments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopCatCal
I don’t mind the corporate greed task force. Corps pay McKinsey and other consultancies to figure out how to f over customers. And since you leftists beat Christianity and morality out of our country, the only authority left is the government. Everyone is now taking full advantage of everything without thinking of others (see college conference realignment), and without guardrails you’ll have madness.

Of course the government will f things up, but I don’t mind them putting caps on late payments
 
My understanding is, that when you factor in the enormous amount of convential CO2 emitting processes used in the production of EV's,not the LEAST of which is the mining for the battery materials etc. That EV's start out with such an emissions deficit (not to mention, the vast majority of the electricity that is used to charge them is provided by some of the least efficient fossil fuel burning processes) that it is practically impossible for them to overcome the deficit over the functional life of the vehicle.

A compact, highly fuel efficient, EFI internal combustion vehicle outperforms an EV in spades. It's not even close.

One MORE stupidly forced initiative by the left. Idiots...
But at least EVs are much less expensive...oh, damn. Nevermind.

All you have to do is notice the essentially non-existent market for used EVs to come to the conclusion that, without heavy government subsidies/generous tax credits, very few EVs would have ever been sold. If the entire lifespan of an EV is more harmful to the environment than current gasoline driven autos, why are we being forced down this road? I hope Toyota (and others) spend billions to fully develop the hydrogen fuel cell and put fueling stations all across the country so EVs become a footnote to history - something we look back on and say, 'What were we thinking?'
 
I don’t mind the corporate greed task force. Corps pay McKinsey and other consultancies to figure out how to f over customers. And since you leftists beat Christianity and morality out of our country, the only authority left is the government. Everyone is now taking full advantage of everything without thinking of others (see college conference realignment), and without guardrails you’ll have madness.

Of course the government will f things up, but I don’t mind them putting caps on late payments

Yes, government bureaucrats will definitely solve the inflation McKinsey consultants are causing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: screwduke1
Science has demonstrated significant greening over the past 30 years. The world, not some project so that you may justify it as some human endeavor. This result is more vegetation, more plant-based food for the world. And, it makes complete sense if there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Your dodge of this verifiable fact is the problem with the climate cult and especially the Marxists who want to use the crisis to empower their cause.
You make a claim, back it up. Link the literature on this supposed greening. You say it’s easily verifiable right there in your post. So do so.
 
I have an honest question. Not trying to pick a fight with Dem's or Rep's.

It's pretty obvious that inflation has skyrocketed the past 2 years, that much of the job market has shrunk resulting in pay in many areas flat compared to pre-Covid.
Whether fair or not, the President always gets the blame/credit for the economy while he is in office. And it's indisputable that Biden's mental clarity is not where you would hope it would be for a World Leader, and his age is way past any other past President, so that concern is only going to get bigger probably quite rapidly. And related to that, I don't think much of the American public has much confidence in the VP based on the many ridiculous things she has said the past 4 years.
Meanwhile the other party is apparently tossing in the same person who was unable to beat this person 4 years ago. What do they think is going to be different? Yes Biden is even older, but so is Trump who would become the 2nd oldest President (if elected) only younger than Biden. Wouldn't there be a big risk of a similar decline by him? Also, in my 50+ years, there have been 2 candidates who IMO a very large % of the public were of the opinion "any one but him/her". And those 2 candidates just happened to run against each other in 2016 (so one of them had to win), yes Trump and Hilary. Winning the primaries often means you went far enough away from center to get the votes of the fringe voters. Then in the main election you must get a good chunk of the middle two-thirds. I said in 2016, had either party voted in a different candidate (literally ANYONE ELSE) in the primaries, then the general election would have been a landslide win for that candidate. I voted for neither (left President blank). But I do have to admit Trump did not do as bad as I had feared he would. But regardless, BOTH will be OLD from 2025-2028 with declining mental faculties.
So, all of that leads me to wonder WHY both of these guys are winning, nearly unopposed? When it almost seems to me, that in the General Election, either side could increase their chances of winning by having almost anyone else run vs the other guy.

So, whether you are planning to vote for Biden or Trump, are you voting for that Person, or for that Party, or against the other Person/Party?

And my last question. I've seen that Haley is staying in the race. How likely is it that she is doing so to (not be Trump's VP pick) in case Trump is found to not legally be able to be on the Nov ballot, hoping the Rep Convention then chooses her (as the only non-drop-out)? And how possible do you think that could be (Trump not allowed on Nov ballot) to happen?
Biden is running because he's the incumbent and, historically, incumbents are hard to beat. Trump is running because he WAS the incumbent in 2020 and many people believe that election wasn't legit. He's also popular among some voters, imo, because he's still considered an 'outsider' and shouldn't be beholden to anyone should he be reelected. On both sides, although for different reasons and issues, there is a huge dissatisfaction with Washington and the blatant hypocrisy, corruption, dishonesty, etc. that is SOP in that swamp. Is there another D or R who would not have the stain of DC associated with them that would run? Nope.

I vote for what I anticipate the policies will be should a candidate win the Presidency. I don't need to like the candidate or approve of their lifestyle prior to becoming President. I will not agree 100% with any candidate so I have to make a value judgement as to which issues are more important to me.

Haley has announced she's NOT staying in the race. The SCOTUS ruled unanimously that a state cannot bar a candidate from being on the ballot 'just because'. It appears that 'The Rematch' will go on.

If I were a betting man, I'd lay odds that, of the two, Biden is less likely to be on the ticket in November than Trump. It appears many of the court cases against Trump are being revealed as politically motivated with very little actual evidence of wrongdoing and many Americans see them for what they are. Between Biden's obvious physical problems, allegations of decades of being paid for favors, Hunter's problems implicating multiple members of the Biden family, historically bad polling data and policies that have failed spectacularly across the board, it is not unreasonable to conclude that he'll be kicked to the curb at the last minute during the DNC convention. Who the sacrificial lamb may be that replaces him is anyone's guess.
 
I mean I love Tolkien but there’s no denying it’s racist AF lol. All the bad men are brown people from the east and all the good men are whites who descended from a master race from an island off the west coast of the continent. You can get into it more deeply than that but there’s really no reason to, pretty much sums it up lol. British supremacy was the order of the day at the time.
 
I mean I love Tolkien but there’s no denying it’s racist AF lol. All the bad men are brown people from the east and all the good men are whites who descended from a master race from an island off the west coast of the continent. You can get into it more deeply than that but there’s really no reason to, pretty much sums it up lol. British supremacy was the order of the day at the time.


That sounds pretty close to the democrat platform if you just sub in Americans for brown people, and DC for the west coast island.
 
No one really cares about gay or LGTBQ from a distance but when it’s apart of your family or in your neighborhood then you have to deal.
Wrong. This pretty much sums up the difference between left and right. Some of us actually do care about human rights, and the others don’t give a shit. They only start caring if it affects them personally.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HymanKaplan
Biden is running because he's the incumbent and, historically, incumbents are hard to beat. Trump is running because he WAS the incumbent in 2020 and many people believe that election wasn't legit. He's also popular among some voters, imo, because he's still considered an 'outsider' and shouldn't be beholden to anyone should he be reelected. On both sides, although for different reasons and issues, there is a huge dissatisfaction with Washington and the blatant hypocrisy, corruption, dishonesty, etc. that is SOP in that swamp. Is there another D or R who would not have the stain of DC associated with them that would run? Nope.

I vote for what I anticipate the policies will be should a candidate win the Presidency. I don't need to like the candidate or approve of their lifestyle prior to becoming President. I will not agree 100% with any candidate so I have to make a value judgement as to which issues are more important to me.

Haley has announced she's NOT staying in the race. The SCOTUS ruled unanimously that a state cannot bar a candidate from being on the ballot 'just because'. It appears that 'The Rematch' will go on.

If I were a betting man, I'd lay odds that, of the two, Biden is less likely to be on the ticket in November than Trump. It appears many of the court cases against Trump are being revealed as politically motivated with very little actual evidence of wrongdoing and many Americans see them for what they are. Between Biden's obvious physical problems, allegations of decades of being paid for favors, Hunter's problems implicating multiple members of the Biden family, historically bad polling data and policies that have failed spectacularly across the board, it is not unreasonable to conclude that he'll be kicked to the curb at the last minute during the DNC convention. Who the sacrificial lamb may be that replaces him is anyone's guess.

Agreed.

My thought is, they need to start figuring this out soon and get someone else on the ballot. November is right around the corner.I think moderates aren't going to feel great about voting for a last second entrant.

My big worry here is they will roll out Michelle, and I think enough voters would fall for that ploy. A women, an African American, husband was pres, shes young-ish. I think she'd be a disaster and there's no reason she should even get a vote.. but that doesn't matter. White women across the country will vote for her out of guilt and that's what the Dems would be banking on.

I also could see them timing her entrance to be perfect for having her avoid debates and time on the press circuit where she can't make an ass out of her self.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT