Stupid Question

[eagle1462010]

In their glee over new found power, that is what Republicans forget.
They will be accountable for their actions and will eventually face an election.

With MAGA calling the shots and traditional Republicans being ignored….there is going to be some crazy shit going down

RINOs will fuck it up.

Stop crying

 

[rightwinger]

RINOs will fuck it up.

Stop crying

RINOs are in hiding and have sworn loyalty to Trump

 

[BlackSand]

There's a fundamental truth to this. So agree about that.

Society must first resolve itself and that will/should theoretically reflect on the laws. But you're still left with a congressional party-of-one in many regards, whereas the electorate's will isn't necessarily what they're representing, but rather special interests primarily, both foreign and domestic, which has historically been, and likely will continue to be, contrary to the truly meaningful interests of the actual people.



So far as ''unity'' goes, I don't like the way it's packaged and sold, so I prefer as much division as possible.

This line of division is the difference between liberty and serfdom in scope.

Now if the majority of Americans could ''unify'' in the cause of liberty, I might give it credence, but as it is the so-called ''moderate'' vote( the unity demograph) is the very symbol of the way ''unity'' is packaged and sold today. And historically speaking, it's been the single-greatest threat to the cause of liberty in America today because the so-called ''moderate'' vote tends to always be just okay with most of the bad anti-liberty legislation coming out of both so-called sides of the party-of-one in Washington combined Again, historically speaking...

.

With Respect Towards the Works of Frederic Bastiat (The Law) ...

Civil Discourse and the Law shouldn't ever walk hand and hand.
In resolving issues of civil discourse ... People draw upon aspects that should not be concerns of Governance.
"Unity" is only an aspect of Law ... When Desires supersede responsible limitations on the powers we grant those who govern us.

When Desires drive legislation ... It does offer the opportunity for the 'interests of actual people" to be reflected in Law.
It is necessary to accept that the Desires and Interests of the People ... Seldom reflect Responsible Law or Limited Powers.

Law begets Law ... And as you suggested, even in our current times ...
Is generally not a friend of Liberty, Freedom ... Or in my humble opinion, Responsible Governance.

.​

 

[Natural Citizen]

.

With Respect Towards the Works of Frederic Bastiat (The Law) ...

Civil Discourse and the Law shouldn't ever walk hand and hand.
In resolving issues of civil discourse ... People draw upon aspects that should not be concerns of Governance.
"Unity" is only an aspect of Law ... When Desires supersede responsible limitations on the powers we grant those who govern us.

When Desires drive legislation ... It does offer the opportunity for the 'interests of actual people" to be reflected in Law.
It is necessary to accept that the Desires and Interests of the People ... Seldom reflect Responsible Law or Limited Powers.​

Well that's certainly the more fundamental way of looking at it. It draws the line between civil discourse and/versus a fundamental way of thinking, to be clear.

But you literally have to undo an entire way of thinking before any meaningful civil discourse and ultimately realization can happen. A place for everything and everything in its place kind of deal.

I suppose I'm only repeating what you just said, though, except in different words. Ha.

But, yeah, agree. Good old Bastiat...

Law begets Law ... And as you suggested, even in our current times ...
Is generally not a friend of Liberty, Freedom ... Or in my humble opinion, Responsible Governance.

.​

Yeah. I've said many times that Responsibility and Liberty are two things which should never be spoken or writted absent the other. So, then, Liberty-Responsibility. And that's a deep discussion. Which I suppose you know.

Of course, even I am guilty of the error. But I'm getting to the age where it's just more meaningful and rewarding to be about it rather than wasting the day away talking about it with what time we have left.

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah. Fuck these garbage people.

You have to appreciate the fact that, for all their whining about this thread, their beloved incoming Vice President once called their McSavior "America's Hitler".

Funny how all that stuff fails to stick in their skulls for long.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

You have to appreciate the fact that, for all their whining about this thread, their beloved incoming Vice President once called their McSavior "America's Hitler".

Funny how all that stuff fails to stick in their skulls for long.

I don't appreciate much about magaturds.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yep. It takes some serious dishonesty to deny this.

So now we'll just see how it goes.

Dishonesty? Like the Democratic Party’s claim that Biden was healthy and cognitive? Like media perpetuating the lie? They are willing to sacrifice America for power. No moral high ground here.

 

[Mashmont]

"Gosh, why wasn't Trump Hitler or a Nazi the first time?"

I keep seeing this ridiculous question.

First, Trump is not Hitler. There are many disturbing parallels between now and 1930's Germany, but Trump is not Hitler. Again: Trump is not Hitler. The fact that the people nearest him are fascists and that he is essentially a de facto fascist does not make him Hitler. A fascist is not necessarily a Nazi.

To answer the question:

1. He hired staffers who were not willing to put Trump over the office. He wants pure, blind loyalty, and their loyalty was to the Constitution. That definitely will not be the case this time. He will specifically and aggressively surround himself with sycophants exclusively.

2. He did not have a specific set of plans going into his presidency. He sure will this time around. They'll hit the ground hard on Day One, and here comes Project 2025 and Theocracy Lite™. We will see an early and historic flurry of activity from the White House.

3. Perhaps most importantly, he has a breathtakingly compliant Supreme Court that has paved the way for him by making him immune. He has no legal or ethical restrictions this time around. He will be the first American President with nothing holding him back.

It's a stupid, insulting, boring, ridiculous question, but now you have your answers. You're welcome.

I don’t remember a single conservative in 0bama’s circle. He surrounded himself with sycophants. I guess that means he was fascist

 

[Mashmont]

"Gosh, why wasn't Trump Hitler or a Nazi the first time?"

I keep seeing this ridiculous question.

First, Trump is not Hitler. There are many disturbing parallels between now and 1930's Germany, but Trump is not Hitler. Again: Trump is not Hitler. The fact that the people nearest him are fascists and that he is essentially a de facto fascist does not make him Hitler. A fascist is not necessarily a Nazi.

To answer the question:



2. He did not have a specific set of plans going into his presidency. He sure will this time around. They'll hit the ground hard on Day One, and here comes Project 2025 and Theocracy Lite™. We will see an early and historic flurry of activity from the White House.

Trump laid out eight promises and kept them all:
1) stop the flood of illegals
2. Make us energy independent.
3. Bring back manufacturing jobs
4. Stop terrorist acts
5. Roll back regulation
6. Appoint justices to overturn Roe.
7. Bring Obamacare repeal to a vote
8. Create a roaring economy.
Done, done, done, done, done., done, done, and done.

3. Perhaps most importantly, he has a breathtakingly compliant Supreme Court that has paved the way for him by making him immune. He has no legal or ethical restrictions this time around. He will be the first American President with nothing holding him back.

It's a stupid, insulting, boring, ridiculous question, but now you have your answers. You're welcome.

 

[Papageorgio]

"Gosh, why wasn't Trump Hitler or a Nazi the first time?"

I keep seeing this ridiculous question.

First, Trump is not Hitler. There are many disturbing parallels between now and 1930's Germany, but Trump is not Hitler. Again: Trump is not Hitler. The fact that the people nearest him are fascists and that he is essentially a de facto fascist does not make him Hitler. A fascist is not necessarily a Nazi.

To answer the question:

1. He hired staffers who were not willing to put Trump over the office. He wants pure, blind loyalty, and their loyalty was to the Constitution. That definitely will not be the case this time. He will specifically and aggressively surround himself with sycophants exclusively.

2. He did not have a specific set of plans going into his presidency. He sure will this time around. They'll hit the ground hard on Day One, and here comes Project 2025 and Theocracy Lite™. We will see an early and historic flurry of activity from the White House.

3. Perhaps most importantly, he has a breathtakingly compliant Supreme Court that has paved the way for him by making him immune. He has no legal or ethical restrictions this time around. He will be the first American President with nothing holding him back.

It's a stupid, insulting, boring, ridiculous question, but now you have your answers. You're welcome.

This is how stupid the regressives are. I just can’t figure how they get this stupid.

 

[Mac-7]

You have to appreciate the fact that, for all their whining about this thread, their beloved incoming Vice President once called their McSavior "America's Hitler".

Funny how all that stuff fails to stick in their skulls for long.

Vance has qualities that Mac1958 does not have

Such as an open mind and the ability to learn from his mistakes

Vance saw 4 years of trump in the white house and changed his opinion

 

[struth]

"Gosh, why wasn't Trump Hitler or a Nazi the first time?"

I keep seeing this ridiculous question.

First, Trump is not Hitler. There are many disturbing parallels between now and 1930's Germany, but Trump is not Hitler. Again: Trump is not Hitler. The fact that the people nearest him are fascists and that he is essentially a de facto fascist does not make him Hitler. A fascist is not necessarily a Nazi.

To answer the question:

1. He hired staffers who were not willing to put Trump over the office. He wants pure, blind loyalty, and their loyalty was to the Constitution. That definitely will not be the case this time. He will specifically and aggressively surround himself with sycophants exclusively.

2. He did not have a specific set of plans going into his presidency. He sure will this time around. They'll hit the ground hard on Day One, and here comes Project 2025 and Theocracy Lite™. We will see an early and historic flurry of activity from the White House.

3. Perhaps most importantly, he has a breathtakingly compliant Supreme Court that has paved the way for him by making him immune. He has no legal or ethical restrictions this time around. He will be the first American President with nothing holding him back.

It's a stupid, insulting, boring, ridiculous question, but now you have your answers. You're welcome.

What about his policies are fascist?

What comparison between 1930s Germany do you see in the United States today?

 

[Couchpotato]

Actually, I kind of agree with your points, so I won't debate them, Vichy Mac.

But Trump is probably as close to Hitler as America is going to get.

What pushes Trump over the line from "Fascist" to "Nazi" is that Nazism has a racist/nationalist element to it that Trump almost certainly reflects.

But a lot of dumb people felt electing a woman would emasculate them this time, so here we are, facing the biggest case of buyer's remorse ever.

So Harris and Biden are willingly turning the reins of power over to a Nazi whos' going to end democracy?

 

[Mac1958]

I don't appreciate much about magaturds.

I'm just going to look at it this way: Maybe Trump will finally grow up, and everything he does works like a charm. Or most of what he does. I don't have a crystal ball.

If shit goes south and there's nothing I can do about it, then that's the way it goes. He won. We deserve what we get, good or bad.

There’s No Denying It Anymore: Trump Is Not a Fluke—He’s America

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Truth is the last thing the Republican party represents.

How so? Do tell. Your party never once asked for my vote. In fact they said they don’t want my vote. Calling me garbage. That’s the truth

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I don't appreciate much about magaturds.

Take your loss like the she male that you are.

 

[Papageorgio]

Truth is the last thing the Republican party represents.

Seems like the Democrats have little regard for truth either, the Democratic Party and Harris told us that Biden had no health issues, physical or mental and it wasn’t until they could no longer hide it, did they switch candidates, and they still wouldn’t admit that they lied, no different than the Republican Party, they put their interest’s and power over Americans. I see no high round either party can take.

 

[Lesh]

It won’t happen, this is just fear mongering from the left, it did not play well to independents that decided the election. The middle, who really elect the President didn’t believe the far left stupidity, Harris should have had her own vision for America and should have defined what she would do differently than Biden if elected. She agreed with every move Biden made and did not have plan.

And if/when it does… you’ll make excuses for it

 

[Papageorgio]

And if/when it does… you’ll make excuses for it

And when it doesn’t you will say it could have.

 

[citygator]

"Gosh, why wasn't Trump Hitler or a Nazi the first time?"

I keep seeing this ridiculous question.

First, Trump is not Hitler. There are many disturbing parallels between now and 1930's Germany, but Trump is not Hitler. Again: Trump is not Hitler. The fact that the people nearest him are fascists and that he is essentially a de facto fascist does not make him Hitler. A fascist is not necessarily a Nazi.

To answer the question:

1. He hired staffers who were not willing to put Trump over the office. He wants pure, blind loyalty, and their loyalty was to the Constitution. That definitely will not be the case this time. He will specifically and aggressively surround himself with sycophants exclusively.

2. He did not have a specific set of plans going into his presidency. He sure will this time around. They'll hit the ground hard on Day One, and here comes Project 2025 and Theocracy Lite™. We will see an early and historic flurry of activity from the White House.

3. Perhaps most importantly, he has a breathtakingly compliant Supreme Court that has paved the way for him by making him immune. He has no legal or ethical restrictions this time around. He will be the first American President with nothing holding him back.

It's a stupid, insulting, boring, ridiculous question, but now you have your answers. You're welcome.

I wonder if he is coherent enough to be an authoritarian anymore? We will see. I feel like he might be a confused useful idiot at this point, but who knows. He was saying some pretty crazy shit near the end of his victory march.