Not happening anywhere.

People with careers and businesses and mortgages and retirement accounts and kids to get through school are not burning tires in the streets.

The conservative revolution is not coming.

Paragraphs and paragraphs of complete and utter BS. It’s meaningless.

Libs are going to do anything to keep Trump from winning and or running.

One reason, of many,I hope he wins.

As with most Trump-fluffing posts, this one is half right - - and thus mostly wrong.

Let me fix it for you, from Trump-scorning standpoint:

(08-28-2023 12:09 AM)450bench Wrote:  Paragraphs and paragraphs of complete and utter BS. It’s intentional.

Libs are going to do anything to keep Republicans from winning and in that effort will make certain that it is Trump who is running.

That seems to me to be more accurate.

Quote:One reason, the only one, that I hope he wins. Even though I know that there is little hope of that.

I know that the majority of posters on this site agree with your assessment, bench, and think that my opinion is clouded by hatred. Perhaps so. And if it turns out that I am wrong, like I was in 2016, I will not run and hide. I will show up and admit it.

Will Trumplets do the same? Not a chance. For those of us warning constantly in 2020 that he was blowing it, we were dismissed as TDS-obsessed Chicken Littles. And when the election results came in, there was next to no acknowledgment on the part of Trumplets that the M.O.B. had any hand in blowing it. We instead heard only a Stacy Abrams level of blaming others. And in the process managed to lose two critically important Georgia runoffs.

The "four-dimensional chess board" is set up for a repeat in 2024. And the "Libs" are on the verge of checkmating us again.

(08-28-2023 06:55 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  As with most Trump-fluffing posts, this one is half right - - and thus mostly wrong.

Let me fix it for you, from Trump-scorning standpoint:

(08-28-2023 12:09 AM)450bench Wrote:  Paragraphs and paragraphs of complete and utter BS. It’s intentional.

Libs are going to do anything to keep Republicans from winning and in that effort will make certain that it is Trump who is running.

That seems to me to be more accurate.

Quote:One reason, the only one, that I hope he wins. Even though I know that there is little hope of that.

I know that the majority of posters on this site agree with your assessment, bench, and think that my opinion is clouded by hatred. Perhaps so. And if it turns out that I am wrong, like I was in 2016, I will not run and hide. I will show up and admit it.

Will Trumplets do the same? Not a chance. For those of us warning constantly in 2020 that he was blowing it, we were dismissed as TDS-obsessed Chicken Littles. And when the election results came in, there was next to no acknowledgment on the part of Trumplets that the M.O.B. had any hand in blowing it. We instead heard only a Stacy Abrams level of blaming others. And in the process managed to lose two critically important Georgia runoffs.

The "four-dimensional chess board" is set up for a repeat in 2024. And the "Libs" are on the verge of checkmating us again.

You say that the Democrats will do anything to keep Republicans from winning the election. On that I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Then you turn around and say that the Democrats will make certain that it is Trump who is running. Their actions seem to suggest in spades just the opposite to be true. Looks more like the Democrats are deathly afraid that Trump WILL be the nominee and eventual winner if they don't do something / anything / everything to intervene.

The Democrats didn't conduct impeachments over fake Russia, Russia, Russia allegations or a reasonable Ukraine phone conversation to boost his image (for example). They hated him then. They hate him now. That's what this latest all-out assault is all about as well.

Meanwhile, on planet La La Land, Mike babbles on.......

(08-28-2023 09:47 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  You say that the Democrats will do anything to keep Republicans from winning the election. On that I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Then you turn around and say that the Democrats will make certain that it is Trump who is running. Their actions seem to suggest in spades just the opposite to be true. Looks more like the Democrats are deathly afraid that Trump WILL be the nominee and eventual winner if they don't do something / anything / everything to intervene.

The Democrats didn't conduct impeachments over fake Russia, Russia, Russia allegations or a reasonable Ukraine phone conversation to boost his image (for example). They hated him then. They hate him now. That's what this latest all-out assault is all about as well.

I understand your view, and appreciate that you back it up with solid, factual support (instead of the far-more-common TDS name-calling approach).

My opinion (and it is just that) is that the Democrats are pursuing a Brer Rabbit approach: "Please, please, Republicans. Do with us what you will. Just don't throw us into the Trump briar patch." And, like the Brer Bear idiots that they are, Republicans will do exactly what the Democrats so dearly want.

Am I right? Who knows? It's just my opinion.

Will it work? I'd say it's a near certainty that Trump will be the Republican nominee, so in that sense it is working. The question then is whether Trump can nevertheless prevail in the general election. I don't see that as likely. But, for the sake of our nation, I will be praying for it.

AM, the fact that Trump will likely be the nominee has nothing to do with Democrats and what they say or do. The one exception to this statement is that the more they weaponize the DOJ and pursue him, the more voters Trump will draw.

(08-28-2023 10:11 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  AM, the fact that Trump will likely be the nominee has nothing to do with Democrats and what they say or do. The one exception to this statement is that the more they weaponize the DOJ and pursue him, the more voters Trump will draw.

Again, I know I have the minority opinion on this. But I don't think that your two points are unconnected.

Democrats know full well what they are doing, and how Republican voters (but not voters overall) will react.

(08-28-2023 09:47 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(08-28-2023 06:55 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  As with most Trump-fluffing posts, this one is half right - - and thus mostly wrong.

Let me fix it for you, from Trump-scorning standpoint:

(08-28-2023 12:09 AM)450bench Wrote:  Paragraphs and paragraphs of complete and utter BS. It’s intentional.

Libs are going to do anything to keep Republicans from winning and in that effort will make certain that it is Trump who is running.

That seems to me to be more accurate.

Quote:One reason, the only one, that I hope he wins. Even though I know that there is little hope of that.

I know that the majority of posters on this site agree with your assessment, bench, and think that my opinion is clouded by hatred. Perhaps so. And if it turns out that I am wrong, like I was in 2016, I will not run and hide. I will show up and admit it.

Will Trumplets do the same? Not a chance. For those of us warning constantly in 2020 that he was blowing it, we were dismissed as TDS-obsessed Chicken Littles. And when the election results came in, there was next to no acknowledgment on the part of Trumplets that the M.O.B. had any hand in blowing it. We instead heard only a Stacy Abrams level of blaming others. And in the process managed to lose two critically important Georgia runoffs.

The "four-dimensional chess board" is set up for a repeat in 2024. And the "Libs" are on the verge of checkmating us again.

You say that the Democrats will do anything to keep Republicans from winning the election. On that I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Then you turn around and say that the Democrats will make certain that it is Trump who is running. Their actions seem to suggest in spades just the opposite to be true. Looks more like the Democrats are deathly afraid that Trump WILL be the nominee and eventual winner if they don't do something / anything / everything to intervene.

The Democrats didn't conduct impeachments over fake Russia, Russia, Russia allegations or a reasonable Ukraine phone conversation to boost his image (for example). They hated him then. They hate him now. That's what this latest all-out assault is all about as well.

The actually DIDNT impeach him over Russia stuff, mind you.

(08-28-2023 11:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-28-2023 09:47 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(08-28-2023 06:55 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  As with most Trump-fluffing posts, this one is half right - - and thus mostly wrong.

Let me fix it for you, from Trump-scorning standpoint:

(08-28-2023 12:09 AM)450bench Wrote:  Paragraphs and paragraphs of complete and utter BS. It’s intentional.

Libs are going to do anything to keep Republicans from winning and in that effort will make certain that it is Trump who is running.

That seems to me to be more accurate.

Quote:One reason, the only one, that I hope he wins. Even though I know that there is little hope of that.

I know that the majority of posters on this site agree with your assessment, bench, and think that my opinion is clouded by hatred. Perhaps so. And if it turns out that I am wrong, like I was in 2016, I will not run and hide. I will show up and admit it.

Will Trumplets do the same? Not a chance. For those of us warning constantly in 2020 that he was blowing it, we were dismissed as TDS-obsessed Chicken Littles. And when the election results came in, there was next to no acknowledgment on the part of Trumplets that the M.O.B. had any hand in blowing it. We instead heard only a Stacy Abrams level of blaming others. And in the process managed to lose two critically important Georgia runoffs.

The "four-dimensional chess board" is set up for a repeat in 2024. And the "Libs" are on the verge of checkmating us again.

You say that the Democrats will do anything to keep Republicans from winning the election. On that I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Then you turn around and say that the Democrats will make certain that it is Trump who is running. Their actions seem to suggest in spades just the opposite to be true. Looks more like the Democrats are deathly afraid that Trump WILL be the nominee and eventual winner if they don't do something / anything / everything to intervene.

The Democrats didn't conduct impeachments over fake Russia, Russia, Russia allegations or a reasonable Ukraine phone conversation to boost his image (for example). They hated him then. They hate him now. That's what this latest all-out assault is all about as well.

The actually DIDNT impeach him over Russia stuff, mind you.

Right. Russia, Russia, Russia was just another lengthy bunch of lies that the Democrats purposely concocted to torment the elected president and keep Trump and congress distracted and busy with during his first 4 years in office.

Obstruction of "justice" or "election interference" still fits in with the message of my post to AM - i.e. get Trump with anything even if we have to make it up or embellish it. Democrats getting up in arms over obstruction of justice or election interference is the definition of the pot calling the kettle black. Did Hillary obstruct justice when she deleted/destroyed after the fact over 30,000 subpoenaed e-mails she had in her possession?

(08-28-2023 10:23 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(08-28-2023 10:11 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  AM, the fact that Trump will likely be the nominee has nothing to do with Democrats and what they say or do. The one exception to this statement is that the more they weaponize the DOJ and pursue him, the more voters Trump will draw.

Again, I know I have the minority opinion on this. But I don't think that your two points are unconnected.

Democrats know full well what they are doing, and how Republican voters (but not voters overall) will react.

Yep...and knowing how much they would love an erect..., er, insurrection there would be nothing better than martial law to keep the peasants in check. They are throwing everything into getting Trump and even if they know that they are wrongly and unlawfully doing it they hope the people will finally arise and that gives them the opportunity for "drastic actions".

You watch...

(08-28-2023 10:23 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(08-28-2023 10:11 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  AM, the fact that Trump will likely be the nominee has nothing to do with Democrats and what they say or do. The one exception to this statement is that the more they weaponize the DOJ and pursue him, the more voters Trump will draw.

Again, I know I have the minority opinion on this. But I don't think that your two points are unconnected.

Democrats know full well what they are doing, and how Republican voters (but not voters overall) will react.

If Trump is going to draw new voters then why not think the Dems are going to draw new voters? It’s what turned the mid-terms away from a red wave. Oh wait, some are still stuck on Trump having more votes in 2020.

(08-28-2023 10:06 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Meanwhile, on planet La La Land, Mike babbles on.......

You post this?

Its just standard politician talk. What did you expect him to say? Trump's lead looks unassailable?

(08-27-2023 10:24 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  This is why anyone who says Trump cant win in 2024 is an idiot. The left and democrats most certainly believe he's going to win, and they know they arent going to be able to cheat the count this time to overcome the landslide so they have to try to keep him off the ballot. Surely you dont think the left would be trying to prevent someone from running if they believe he cant win, do you?

You are quite logical.

(08-27-2023 04:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 04:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 12:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:53 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By trying to use illegal means to stop a transition of power to another back to himself. Like what the Eastman plan spells out fairly clearly.

The issue is improperly (that is breaking the law) to keep the transition from occurring.

And no, I dont think the Capitol riot was an 'insurrection.' However comments from Eastman himself clearly denote that the steps in what he proposed were illegal.

11:44 1/6 pm email from Eastman to Pence: "I implore you to consider one more ... violation [of the Electoral Counting Act]"

In addition to his admission that the plan would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court.

Everything you just said is a political matter at best and maybe a court matter but not a 14th amendment section 3 of the Constitution matter. Again he was the sitting President and didn’t renounce his allegiance to the country or anything similar to the confederates during the time of the civil war

The actual language isnt to 'allegiance to the country'. Or anything like that. The language of the section is in terms of the officeholder's oath to the Constitution.

Quote:No person shall ... hold any office ... under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

I would say that pretty much trying to circumvent the Constitution, by trying to usurp the state's themselves in selecting electors, in the attempt to hold onto power is certainly a category that fits the wording.

It says that if you piss on the Constitution, then you cannot serve it.

And I agree that it will be a court matter.

I cannot tell you how many issues of Con Law and Procedure that were theory are now actual caselaw due to DJT. I think we are going to mark another first to him for his service.

Alternate electors are a long tradition. That's been pointed out to you. But you keep trying to prove you really want to be a full blooded NPC.

No they are not. You may want to go back and look that one up.

The last instance of alternate slates of electors was 1960, based on the fact that Hawaii still hadnt certified their election.

Last one before that was in the late 1800's.

Hawaii DID certify their election. Dems selected them anyway. A later recount found the Dems won.

If you don't identify alternate electors, then you have noone if the results later change.

And what happened in 1876 is that there were alternates in several states and Congress determined which slate was valid.

I'm pretty sure the Dems have done it since 1960 as well. In any event, you have agreed with me but you still keep putting out stupid talking points. So was JFK an insurrectionist traitor? Hayes and Tilden?

(08-28-2023 04:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 04:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 04:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 12:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-27-2023 11:53 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  Everything you just said is a political matter at best and maybe a court matter but not a 14th amendment section 3 of the Constitution matter. Again he was the sitting President and didn’t renounce his allegiance to the country or anything similar to the confederates during the time of the civil war

The actual language isnt to 'allegiance to the country'. Or anything like that. The language of the section is in terms of the officeholder's oath to the Constitution.

Quote:No person shall ... hold any office ... under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

I would say that pretty much trying to circumvent the Constitution, by trying to usurp the state's themselves in selecting electors, in the attempt to hold onto power is certainly a category that fits the wording.

It says that if you piss on the Constitution, then you cannot serve it.

And I agree that it will be a court matter.

I cannot tell you how many issues of Con Law and Procedure that were theory are now actual caselaw due to DJT. I think we are going to mark another first to him for his service.

Alternate electors are a long tradition. That's been pointed out to you. But you keep trying to prove you really want to be a full blooded NPC.

No they are not. You may want to go back and look that one up.

The last instance of alternate slates of electors was 1960, based on the fact that Hawaii still hadnt certified their election.

Last one before that was in the late 1800's.

Hawaii DID certify their election. Dems selected them anyway. A later recount found the Dems won.

If you don't identify alternate electors, then you have noone if the results later change.

And what happened in 1876 is that there were alternates in several states and Congress determined which slate was valid.

I'm pretty sure the Dems have done it since 1960 as well. In any event, you have agreed with me but you still keep putting out stupid talking points. So was JFK an insurrectionist traitor? Hayes and Tilden?

As you said, there was a recount ongoing. As in ongoing. Note the word ‘ongoing’.

All one had in 2020 was certification, recounts done (note the plural), lawsuits concluded (again note the plural). That is not even a *whiff* of them having any legal backing.

Ongoing? Well….. bupkus. All that was ongoing was the bald direction to submit, and the request from Trump to Pence to ignore the certified votes, to throw them out by fiat, and to replace them with the ones pullled from a Cracker Jack box.

Yep. Exactly the same.

Maybe next time try the actual details instead of baldly tossing stuff against the wall.

(08-27-2023 03:02 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  It's coming. At some point they are going to push too far and the push back will be yuge.

As much as I'd like to agree with you, it won't happen. The right consists of law abiding, hard working, family men and women with nice homes (mortgages), and good jobs, and nice cars (2 or more), and kids who depend on them to maintain their lifestyle... those kinds of people (90% of them) are not going to take their guns and go kill the people who would have to be killed to overthrow this marxist takeover. And outside of killing, what can really be done? The left controls everything from the media to education to elections (mail in, ballot harvesting, and all the other ways to flood the ballot box with "ballots" instead of what it should be, which is voters.... one man, one vote)