(09-05-2024 11:24 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  According to the idiots here on this board, I am part and parcel of the above-mentioned group. Albeit, interestingly, I dont agree with Tom or Mensa or X with very much at all in terms of taxes, economic policy, or a large number of traditional right wing issues (that seem to have been kicked to the side of the road in Trump Time).

So, are you going to let your hatred for Donald Trump drive you to vote for someone with whom you disagree on taxes, economic policy, or that large number of traditional conservative issues?

Again, maybe look at my answer I posted in response to a kissing cousin of your question above. Saves your time, and mine.

In short, not necessarily a hatred -- a realization that the guy is an absolute danger if in the office. Bummer on that. An absolute hard no on Trump for that.

I find it odd that you think Trump is a danger but not Kamala, especially if you hold a bunch of conservative fiscal values.

One tried to explicitly short circuit the certified votes of 7 states, that of 26 million people, for no reason beyond "Hey Mikey, shitcan those votes", that is -- no legal basis whatsoever.

And tried to have them replaced with slates having the legal backing of some pulled out of a box of Capn Crunch.

That is a game killer for me for that person to occupy the Oval Office. End of story.

As for my values, you might find that the vast number of them are traditional conservative -- albeit not social conservative. And on some issues tend toward classic liberalism -- which if you are sharp is not either modern liberalism nor progressive.

As for Kamala -- her hold on certain economic issues has me in a 'probably no' for her. Albeit her stance has changed considerably since her days in Cali, and her first Presidential run.

And, Trump's view of the unitary executive is terrible. And dangerous in its own right. Given Trump's explicit actions noted above, having the person with the predilection to do those actions, coupled with the viewpoint of the omnipotent power of the Executive -- makes him a double fing hard no.

In terms of 'danger' -- economics *can* be fixed. Short circuiting elections in the manner that Trump tried to do really cannot. Nor can dramatic escalation of Presidential power.

I feel guilty for prolonging this thread by making a short comment.

Esp. when the long answers are repetitive.

P.S. I saw the answer yesterday, Clarence. I just liked to see it again. The question. Not the answer. Real answer is still TDS.

Oh hell, that's gonna cause 2000 more words.

(09-05-2024 11:58 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I feel guilty for prolonging this thread by making a short comment.

Esp. when the long answers are repetitive.

P.S. I saw the answer yesterday, Clarence. I just liked to see it again. The question. Not the answer. Real answer is still TDS.

Oh hell, that's gonna cause 2000 more words.

The answer for you is 'anything anti Trump HAS to be TDS'. You be you, sparkles. That is before you go rant and rave the rest of your rhetorical slop at the clouds.

(09-05-2024 09:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 09:17 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 08:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 07:49 AM)VA49er Wrote:  So, not only is it partisan manufactured outrage, it's hypocritical as well. Par for the course.

Curious, did you see the part of the story that the Army said this was not allowed back in 1999 and that McCain then removed the footage?

And there's the difference between McCain and Trump.

McCain WRONGLY videotaped at Arlington because it was not allowed.

Trump CORRECTLY photographed at Arlington because he was allowed.

McCain broke the rules. Trump did not.

Period

Full Stop

ANC said it wasnt allowed. Told the parties.

An ANC employee tried to stop the efforts.

Trump personnel physically assaulted her over this.

And you keep jumping up and downs and furiously windmilling those tiny hands squeaking 'it was correctly done'. Brilliant.

Indict him……again.

Until that happens all you got is more bullchit. Which you happen to have a lot of.

(09-05-2024 11:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:24 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  According to the idiots here on this board, I am part and parcel of the above-mentioned group. Albeit, interestingly, I dont agree with Tom or Mensa or X with very much at all in terms of taxes, economic policy, or a large number of traditional right wing issues (that seem to have been kicked to the side of the road in Trump Time).

So, are you going to let your hatred for Donald Trump drive you to vote for someone with whom you disagree on taxes, economic policy, or that large number of traditional conservative issues?

Again, maybe look at my answer I posted in response to a kissing cousin of your question above. Saves your time, and mine.

In short, not necessarily a hatred -- a realization that the guy is an absolute danger if in the office. Bummer on that. An absolute hard no on Trump for that.

I find it odd that you think Trump is a danger but not Kamala, especially if you hold a bunch of conservative fiscal values.

One tried to explicitly short circuit the certified votes of 7 states, that of 26 million people, for no reason beyond "Hey Mikey, shitcan those votes", that is -- no legal basis whatsoever.

Actually he had legal basis. States did not follow their own laws, and congress had enabled the VP to step in.

The end

Full Stop

(09-05-2024 12:06 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 09:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 09:17 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 08:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 07:49 AM)VA49er Wrote:  So, not only is it partisan manufactured outrage, it's hypocritical as well. Par for the course.

Curious, did you see the part of the story that the Army said this was not allowed back in 1999 and that McCain then removed the footage?

And there's the difference between McCain and Trump.

McCain WRONGLY videotaped at Arlington because it was not allowed.

Trump CORRECTLY photographed at Arlington because he was allowed.

McCain broke the rules. Trump did not.

Period

Full Stop

ANC said it wasnt allowed. Told the parties.

An ANC employee tried to stop the efforts.

Trump personnel physically assaulted her over this.

And you keep jumping up and downs and furiously windmilling those tiny hands squeaking 'it was correctly done'. Brilliant.

Indict him……again.

Until that happens all you got is more bullchit. Which you happen to have a lot of.

I guess your outline of facts and reality is guided by indictment or not? Ohhhh....tayyyyyyy....

(09-05-2024 11:17 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  According to the idiots here on this board, I am part and parcel of the above-mentioned group. Albeit, interestingly, I dont agree with Tom or Mensa or X with very much at all in terms of taxes, economic policy, or a large number of traditional right wing issues (that seem to have been kicked to the side of the road in Trump Time).

So, are you going to let your hatred for Donald Trump drive you to vote for someone with whom you disagree on taxes, economic policy, or that large number of traditional conservative issues?

Because Trump does not have traditional conservative values. He wants to fleece America. Turns out the GOP are a bunch of sniveling crazy cultists , so the Dems and independents have been left to clean up the mess.

He actually believes this? But, gives carte blanch to the Demons? Amazing!

568.

(09-05-2024 12:18 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:24 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, are you going to let your hatred for Donald Trump drive you to vote for someone with whom you disagree on taxes, economic policy, or that large number of traditional conservative issues?

Again, maybe look at my answer I posted in response to a kissing cousin of your question above. Saves your time, and mine.

In short, not necessarily a hatred -- a realization that the guy is an absolute danger if in the office. Bummer on that. An absolute hard no on Trump for that.

I find it odd that you think Trump is a danger but not Kamala, especially if you hold a bunch of conservative fiscal values.

One tried to explicitly short circuit the certified votes of 7 states, that of 26 million people, for no reason beyond "Hey Mikey, shitcan those votes", that is -- no legal basis whatsoever.

Actually he had legal basis. States did not follow their own laws, and congress had enabled the VP to step in.

The end

Full Stop

7 slates of electors.

Certified by each of their respective states.

Having a certificate of ascertainment signed by the appropriate legal authority.

Submitted well before the Safe Harbor date. Meaning that Congress must treat them as 'conclusive'.

No ongoing legal cases that would impact their status.

No ongoing legislation by any state legislature that would impact their status.

End of story.

You really need to see a proctologist. The amount of idiotic stuff you pull out of your ass is a tad alarming.

(09-05-2024 12:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 12:06 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 09:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 09:17 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 08:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Curious, did you see the part of the story that the Army said this was not allowed back in 1999 and that McCain then removed the footage?

And there's the difference between McCain and Trump.

McCain WRONGLY videotaped at Arlington because it was not allowed.

Trump CORRECTLY photographed at Arlington because he was allowed.

McCain broke the rules. Trump did not.

Period

Full Stop

ANC said it wasnt allowed. Told the parties.

An ANC employee tried to stop the efforts.

Trump personnel physically assaulted her over this.

And you keep jumping up and downs and furiously windmilling those tiny hands squeaking 'it was correctly done'. Brilliant.

Indict him……again.

Until that happens all you got is more bullchit. Which you happen to have a lot of.

I guess your outline of facts and reality is guided by indictment or not? Ohhhh....tayyyyyyy....

Guided by common sense. I would tell you to try it but my common sense tells me you won’t understand.
Again, you’ve got diddley squat. He said she said in this environment of extreme political division is worth exactly that. No photos. No video. No indictment. So yeah, maybe you should provide some facts, Clarence.

(09-05-2024 12:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 12:18 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:24 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Again, maybe look at my answer I posted in response to a kissing cousin of your question above. Saves your time, and mine.

In short, not necessarily a hatred -- a realization that the guy is an absolute danger if in the office. Bummer on that. An absolute hard no on Trump for that.

I find it odd that you think Trump is a danger but not Kamala, especially if you hold a bunch of conservative fiscal values.

One tried to explicitly short circuit the certified votes of 7 states, that of 26 million people, for no reason beyond "Hey Mikey, shitcan those votes", that is -- no legal basis whatsoever.

Actually he had legal basis. States did not follow their own laws, and congress had enabled the VP to step in.

The end

Full Stop

7 slates of electors.

Certified by each of their respective states.

Having a certificate of ascertainment signed by the appropriate legal authority.

Submitted well before the Safe Harbor date. Meaning that Congress must treat them as 'conclusive'.

No ongoing legal cases that would impact their status.

No ongoing legislation by any state legislature that would impact their status.

End of story.

You really need to see a proctologist. The amount of idiotic stuff you pull out of your ass is a tad alarming.

yet you are like 0 for 87 against me in legal matters.

(09-05-2024 12:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 12:06 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 09:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 09:17 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 08:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Curious, did you see the part of the story that the Army said this was not allowed back in 1999 and that McCain then removed the footage?

And there's the difference between McCain and Trump.

McCain WRONGLY videotaped at Arlington because it was not allowed.

Trump CORRECTLY photographed at Arlington because he was allowed.

McCain broke the rules. Trump did not.

Period

Full Stop

ANC said it wasnt allowed. Told the parties.

An ANC employee tried to stop the efforts.

Trump personnel physically assaulted her over this.

And you keep jumping up and downs and furiously windmilling those tiny hands squeaking 'it was correctly done'. Brilliant.

Indict him……again.

Until that happens all you got is more bullchit. Which you happen to have a lot of.

I guess your outline of facts and reality is guided by indictment or not? Ohhhh....tayyyyyyy....

Well, that has been the ultimate goal since the day the man was elected president.

(09-05-2024 12:51 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 12:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 12:06 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 09:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 09:17 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  And there's the difference between McCain and Trump.

McCain WRONGLY videotaped at Arlington because it was not allowed.

Trump CORRECTLY photographed at Arlington because he was allowed.

McCain broke the rules. Trump did not.

Period

Full Stop

ANC said it wasnt allowed. Told the parties.

An ANC employee tried to stop the efforts.

Trump personnel physically assaulted her over this.

And you keep jumping up and downs and furiously windmilling those tiny hands squeaking 'it was correctly done'. Brilliant.

Indict him……again.

Until that happens all you got is more bullchit. Which you happen to have a lot of.

I guess your outline of facts and reality is guided by indictment or not? Ohhhh....tayyyyyyy....

Guided by common sense. I would tell you to try it but my common sense tells me you won’t understand.
Again, you’ve got diddley squat. He said she said in this environment of extreme political division is worth exactly that. No photos. No video. No indictment. So yeah, maybe you should provide some facts, Clarence.

You mean like the video the trump campaign said they had of the incident. Are they waiting until after infrastructure week to release it?

The Russia Russia Russia starts all over again and Tanqy Bois will be right in there with them on that too. Not to mention the left’s attempts to register illegals. Good thing he and Marc Elias are on it. Maybe Elias can put in a good word to Jack Smith if he’s got a spot open.

(09-05-2024 12:59 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 12:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 12:18 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:24 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I find it odd that you think Trump is a danger but not Kamala, especially if you hold a bunch of conservative fiscal values.

One tried to explicitly short circuit the certified votes of 7 states, that of 26 million people, for no reason beyond "Hey Mikey, shitcan those votes", that is -- no legal basis whatsoever.

Actually he had legal basis. States did not follow their own laws, and congress had enabled the VP to step in.

The end

Full Stop

7 slates of electors.

Certified by each of their respective states.

Having a certificate of ascertainment signed by the appropriate legal authority.

Submitted well before the Safe Harbor date. Meaning that Congress must treat them as 'conclusive'.

No ongoing legal cases that would impact their status.

No ongoing legislation by any state legislature that would impact their status.

End of story.

You really need to see a proctologist. The amount of idiotic stuff you pull out of your ass is a tad alarming.

yet you are like 0 for 87 against me in legal matters.

Sure thing, sparky.

(09-05-2024 01:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 12:51 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 12:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 12:06 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 09:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  ANC said it wasnt allowed. Told the parties.

An ANC employee tried to stop the efforts.

Trump personnel physically assaulted her over this.

And you keep jumping up and downs and furiously windmilling those tiny hands squeaking 'it was correctly done'. Brilliant.

Indict him……again.

Until that happens all you got is more bullchit. Which you happen to have a lot of.

I guess your outline of facts and reality is guided by indictment or not? Ohhhh....tayyyyyyy....

Guided by common sense. I would tell you to try it but my common sense tells me you won’t understand.
Again, you’ve got diddley squat. He said she said in this environment of extreme political division is worth exactly that. No photos. No video. No indictment. So yeah, maybe you should provide some facts, Clarence.

You mean like the video the trump campaign said they had of the incident. Are they waiting until after infrastructure week to release it?

Politically better the old boy is. Give em enough rope.


It won’t matter to you idiots anyway, would it?

(09-05-2024 01:01 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  The Russia Russia Russia starts all over again and Tanqy Bois will be right in there with them on that too. Not to mention the left’s attempts to register illegals. Good thing he and Marc Elias are on it. Maybe Elias can put in a good word to Jack Smith if he’s got a spot open.

I take it you are upset that there is an indictment against Russians for illegal interference and money laundering in the course of that interference? Seriously?

I would hope that every instance of Russian meddling be dealt with in such a manner. I guess you think it is all good. Sounds fun.

(09-05-2024 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 12:59 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 12:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 12:18 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  One tried to explicitly short circuit the certified votes of 7 states, that of 26 million people, for no reason beyond "Hey Mikey, shitcan those votes", that is -- no legal basis whatsoever.

Actually he had legal basis. States did not follow their own laws, and congress had enabled the VP to step in.

The end

Full Stop

7 slates of electors.

Certified by each of their respective states.

Having a certificate of ascertainment signed by the appropriate legal authority.

Submitted well before the Safe Harbor date. Meaning that Congress must treat them as 'conclusive'.

No ongoing legal cases that would impact their status.

No ongoing legislation by any state legislature that would impact their status.

End of story.

You really need to see a proctologist. The amount of idiotic stuff you pull out of your ass is a tad alarming.

yet you are like 0 for 87 against me in legal matters.

Sure thing, sparky.

Well…..he is.
It’s the real reason you disappeared and will again soon.
How’s that documents case going?

(09-05-2024 11:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:24 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 11:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  According to the idiots here on this board, I am part and parcel of the above-mentioned group. Albeit, interestingly, I dont agree with Tom or Mensa or X with very much at all in terms of taxes, economic policy, or a large number of traditional right wing issues (that seem to have been kicked to the side of the road in Trump Time).

So, are you going to let your hatred for Donald Trump drive you to vote for someone with whom you disagree on taxes, economic policy, or that large number of traditional conservative issues?

Again, maybe look at my answer I posted in response to a kissing cousin of your question above. Saves your time, and mine.

In short, not necessarily a hatred -- a realization that the guy is an absolute danger if in the office. Bummer on that. An absolute hard no on Trump for that.

I find it odd that you think Trump is a danger but not Kamala, especially if you hold a bunch of conservative fiscal values.

One tried to explicitly short circuit the certified votes of 7 states, that of 26 million people, for no reason beyond "Hey Mikey, shitcan those votes", that is -- no legal basis whatsoever.

And tried to have them replaced with slates having the legal backing of some pulled out of a box of Capn Crunch.

That is a game killer for me for that person to occupy the Oval Office. End of story.

As for my values, you might find that the vast number of them are traditional conservative -- albeit not social conservative. And on some issues tend toward classic liberalism -- which if you are sharp is not either modern liberalism nor progressive.

As for Kamala -- her hold on certain economic issues has me in a 'probably no' for her. Albeit her stance has changed considerably since her days in Cali, and her first Presidential run.

And, Trump's view of the unitary executive is terrible. And dangerous in its own right. Given Trump's explicit actions noted above, having the person with the predilection to do those actions, coupled with the viewpoint of the omnipotent power of the Executive -- makes him a double fing hard no.

In terms of 'danger' -- economics *can* be fixed. Short circuiting elections in the manner that Trump tried to do really cannot. Nor can dramatic escalation of Presidential power.

Seems to happen every election where democrats try to appear moderate. Watching Sherrod Brown campaign commercials here in Ohio you would think he was Joe Manchin. Once they get elected they return to their true selves. And yes that is true for some republicans as well who run on fiscal responsibility and then vote for turds like the inflation reduction act.

(09-05-2024 01:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-05-2024 01:01 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  The Russia Russia Russia starts all over again and Tanqy Bois will be right in there with them on that too. Not to mention the left’s attempts to register illegals. Good thing he and Marc Elias are on it. Maybe Elias can put in a good word to Jack Smith if he’s got a spot open.

I take it you are upset that there is an indictment against Russians for illegal interference and money laundering in the course of that interference? Seriously?

I would hope that every instance of Russian meddling be dealt with in such a manner. I guess you think it is all good. Sounds fun.

You swallow that chit Tanqy Bois. When are you going to start posting all of those sham indictments. You know, like those against the American influencers?
More proof of your moronic psychosis.