Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Bogie on July 02, 2021, 07:03:30 PM
-
...and the true believers are going crazy.
https://thirdratepundit.com/trump-derangement-works-both-ways/
-
Random thought: If Trump runs again, he can only be elected to the presidency one more time. But ...
Amendment 22 to the Constitution:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
It's one of those "Nah, never happen" scenarios, but it's within the law (as I read it) that Trump could be elected again and serve one term. He could then turn around and run as the VP candidate behind his VP. If they win, the new President could then resign from office, making Trump president for a third term.
If Trump were to be elected again, I wish he would make good on two of his promises from 2016: (1) Build the wall; and (2) universal, national carry reciprocity.
-
I agree he should finish the wall. As for "national reciprocity", I don't want the federal government involved. It would amount to recognition and approval by the federal government that the several states can infringe on the RKBA. I won't be happy until all infringements are repealed - on both the federal and state levels. Anyone so adjudicated who cannot be trusted out in society with arms, if not executed, belongs in prison or an institution until it can be proven in a court of law that they are no longer a threat to society. Period.
Woody
-
Need trumpism without the Don. DJT Jr. maybe. Or Owens/Ivanka. I liked trumps results but probably would never have got on with hime personally. 2024 he is older, more bitter, more unhinged.
If we get that far. The installation of Kamala may end it all.
-
Random thought: If Trump runs again, he can only be elected to the presidency one more time. But ...
Amendment 22 to the Constitution:
It's one of those "Nah, never happen" scenarios, but it's within the law (as I read it) that Trump could be elected again and serve one term. He could then turn around and run as the VP candidate behind his VP. If they win, the new President could then resign from office, making Trump president for a third term.
If Trump were to be elected again, I wish he would make good on two of his promises from 2016: (1) Build the wall; and (2) universal, national carry reciprocity.
I think the V. P. has to qualify to be president under the law to be V. P. in the first pkace, and if Trump is elected again he could not then run as V. P. for this reason. IANAL, but that's how it's been explained to me. :O
-
We don't need a "wall." We need a fence. With patrols.
-
We don't need a "wall." We need a fence. With patrols.
No, a moat, with alligators, piranha, sharks, moray eels .... [popcorn]
-
I think the V. P. has to qualify to be president under the law to be V. P. in the first pkace, and if Trump is elected again he could not then run as V. P. for this reason. IANAL, but that's how it's been explained to me. :O
I quoted the text of the 22nd Amendment. "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, ..."
Words have meaning. If he is elected as Vice President, and then takes the office of President by virtue of the order of succession, he would not have been elected a third time. It does not say that no person may serve as President three times -- it says no person shall be elected more than twice.
-
If it makes some of my hipster neighbors start to froth at the mouth... works for me.
-
I think the V. P. has to qualify to be president under the law to be V. P. in the first pkace, and if Trump is elected again he could not then run as V. P. for this reason. IANAL, but that's how it's been explained to me. :O
Oh, does that still matter?
-
My only concern is will him running cause the left to rally more than they really should? I don't really want him and his campaign to overshadow the mid-term elections.
-
I wish Trump would have won the last election. I truly believe that there is more than enough evidence to show that election fraud, big tech, and the MSM swayed the outcome.
Nevertheless, I think Trump's role now is something other than running for President a second time. I believe a second Trump run would end badly, not just for Trump, but for the right. Big tech and the MSM would absolutely censor and "curate" the election (not that they won't do that to whoever runs, but especially for Trump).
It's way too early, but at this point DeSantis has been standing out to me as a guy who does Trump-like policy, but without the Trump twitter baggage or Trump's tendency to go junior high school anytime anyone says anything about him. I like Noem as well.
-
With the Democrats firmly in control of the election apparatus in this country, does it really matter who runs for office on the Republican side? In my opinion, all the talk about the Republicans taking back control of Congress in 2022 is just wishful thinking.
-
With the Democrats the media and Deep State Republicans firmly in control of the election apparatus in this country, does it really matter who runs for office on the Republican side? In my opinion, all the talk about the Republicans taking back control of Congress in 2022 is just wishful thinking.
Lot's a blame to go around.
-
With the Democrats firmly in control of the election apparatus in this country, does it really matter who runs for office on the Republican side? In my opinion, all the talk about the Republicans taking back control of Congress in 2022 is just wishful thinking.
Are you going to vote next year?
-
With the Democrats firmly in control of the election apparatus in this country, does it really matter who runs for office on the Republican side? In my opinion, all the talk about the Republicans taking back control of Congress in 2022 is just wishful thinking.
Agreed, but G-d, let us both be wrong. As I said dozens of times, "The Fix is in."
On the other hand, the "alerts" over the last vote-counting controversy may suppress the Dems' passion to generate votes. And by "generate" I don't mean busing valid voters to the polls. :mad:
I mean "generate."
"Oh, but Terry, there's no proof of voting fraud."
As I also said before...
https://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=64720.msg1310797#msg1310797
1. There can be no suspicion without observation
2. There can be no investigation without suspicion
3. There can be no proof without investigation.
Note that Truth is not attainable if this process is interrupted at any point.
So when a group cries "There is no proof," they assume you are too stupid to catch on to where they interrupted the process.
Of course there's no proof. The process was interrupted between 1 and 2.
Terry, 230RN
-
I think the biggest thing to emerge from the 2020 election was the concept among the intelligentsia that "Fraud is okay if we're doing it."
-
I quoted the text of the 22nd Amendment. "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, ..."
Words have meaning. If he is elected as Vice President, and then takes the office of President by virtue of the order of succession, he would not have been elected a third time. It does not say that no person may serve as President three times -- it says no person shall be elected more than twice.
Good point. It's one I missed. Thank you.
Woody
-
Are you going to vote next year?
I honestly don't know at this point. If it looks like the Dems are cranking their fraud machine up to eleven again, probably not. There really isn't much keeping them from cranking it up as they proved its efficacy last November. They will almost certainly refine things before Nov. 2022.
-
I honestly don't know at this point. If it looks like the Dems are cranking their fraud machine up to eleven again, probably not. There really isn't much keeping them from cranking it up as they proved its efficacy last November. They will almost certainly refine things before Nov. 2022.
Do you see the problem with not voting?
-
Do you see the problem with not voting?
If there is absolutely no way for your supported candidate to win an election, then what is the point of voting? And please don't raise that hoary canard about a single vote making a difference.
-
If there is absolutely no way for your supported candidate to win an election, then what is the point of voting? And please don't raise that hoary canard about a single vote making a difference.
I'm not going to say anything about a single vote, except that they add up to multiple votes. There is no way your candidate will win, if a bunch of his supporters stay home. Remember, the fewer the votes for the other guy, the easier it is to cheat.
-
I'm not going to say anything about a single vote, except that they add up to multiple votes. There is no way your candidate will win, if a bunch of his supporters stay home. Remember, the fewer the votes for the other guy, the easier it is to cheat.
Yes.
-
Random thought: If Trump runs again, he can only be elected to the presidency one more time. But ...
Amendment 22 to the Constitution:
It's one of those "Nah, never happen" scenarios, but it's within the law (as I read it) that Trump could be elected again and serve one term. He could then turn around and run as the VP candidate behind his VP. If they win, the new President could then resign from office, making Trump president for a third term.
If Trump were to be elected again, I wish he would make good on two of his promises from 2016: (1) Build the wall; and (2) universal, national carry reciprocity.
It CAN happen. Over 100 years ago, Grover Cleveland served two NON-consecutive terms as President, #22 and #24.
-
It CAN happen. Over 100 years ago, Grover Cleveland served two NON-consecutive terms as President, #22 and #24.
That was a long time ago. After FDR they passed an amendment limiting the president to two terms.
-
I'm not going to say anything about a single vote, except that they add up to multiple votes. There is no way your candidate will win, if a bunch of his supporters stay home. Remember, the fewer the votes for the other guy, the easier it is to cheat.
There is no way for your candidate to win regardless, when the opposition manufactures whatever votes are necessary for their candidate to win. Not voting has zero net effect when opposition votes are being manufactured out of thin air.
Voting becomes an exercise in futility for the party that refuses to commit fraud.
-
Audits are what matter.
Recounting fraudulent ballots doesn't do anything except show that the recount had a lot of numbers.
What needs to happen is that if you see fraud, you need to get someone arrested. If you see a table set up in the campus student center, and can prove that people are registering, and filling out their mail-in ballots, on multiple occasions, get evidence, and call the cops. Call the papers and other news organizations. Same thing with urban "get out the vote" programs.
-
It CAN happen. Over 100 years ago, Grover Cleveland served two NON-consecutive terms as President, #22 and #24.
Yes, but I was thinking of Trump winning reelection for one more four-year term (which would be the last time he could be elected as President), and then going on in a handshake deal with his VP to switch roles and get a third term by succession.
-
I like that idea mostly because it will give serious conniption fits to folks like a lady I saw tonight, who had a tat that was "45" with a red circle/slash over it. And too much perfume, and Hot Topic hair.
-
I like that idea mostly because it will give serious conniption fits to folks like a lady I saw tonight, who had a tat that was "45" with a red circle/slash over it. And too much perfume, and Hot Topic hair.
That's why I like it. If he could pull it off, the caterwauling from the left would be supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.
-
The woke hipsters don't understand anything beyond what their belief system has authorized...
A lot of them REALLY hate the whole "judge a person according to who they are, rather than what race they are" concept. You can damn near see their brains lock up if you phrase it right.
-
"Minority rights are important."
And they nod...
"And the individual is the smallest minority."
And they start to look panicked.
-
Voting becomes an exercise in futility for the party that refuses to commit fraud.
Do you think there is a party that refuses to commit fraud?
-
Do you think there is a party that refuses to commit fraud?
There is a party that commits much less fraud because they tend to be more law abiding. Certainly much less organized fraud sanctioned by their leadership.
-
Fraud is no longer fraud if it is done for the greater good of stopping nazis.
-
There is a party that commits much less fraud because they tend to be more law abiding. Certainly much less organized fraud sanctioned by their leadership.
I have seen no evidence that the party leaders of the R's "tend to be more law abiding" then the party leaders of the D's. The voters? Maybe, but they aren't the ones doing fraud.
I think one would have to be pretty hopelessly naive to think the local party flunkies in areas that are contestable aren't all plotting pretty much the same thing.
-
There is no way for your candidate to win regardless, when the opposition manufactures whatever votes are necessary for their candidate to win. Not voting has zero net effect when opposition votes are being manufactured out of thin air.
Voting becomes an exercise in futility for the party that refuses to commit fraud.
Yeah, just give up. That's the spirit.
-
I have seen no evidence that the party leaders of the R's "tend to be more law abiding" then the party leaders of the D's. The voters? Maybe, but they aren't the ones doing fraud.
I think one would have to be pretty hopelessly naive to think the local party flunkies in areas that are contestable aren't all plotting pretty much the same thing.
What a stupid argument to be having right now.
-
Yeah, just give up. That's the spirit.
What's that definition of insanity again? Something about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?
And where exactly did I mention giving up?
-
What a stupid argument to be having right now.
That's a bit of a drive-by response. Maybe elaborate a little so we can discuss?
-
If there is absolutely no way for your supported candidate to win an election, then what is the point of voting? And please don't raise that hoary canard about a single vote making a difference.
That is exactly what they want you to think. All they have to do is convince enough voters to think that way and by most indications based on R turn out they usually succeed.
How many people truly honestly gave Trump any sort of chance in 2016? Hillary already had the new WH window curtains picked out for goodness sake.
-
That is exactly what they want you to think. All they have to do is convince enough voters to think that way and by most indications based on R turn out they usually succeed.
How many people truly honestly gave Trump any sort of chance in 2016? Hillary already had the new WH window curtains picked out for goodness sake.
That argument is without merit when the opposition manufactures fraudulent ballots wholesale.
-
That argument is without merit when the opposition manufactures fraudulent ballots wholesale.
And, IMHO, what that means is that the Rs, the Is, the Ls, and the Us (that's Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, and Unaffiliateds) need to double down on observing the voting and counting process in future elections. Where possible, all of those groups need to cooperate in keeping tabs on voter registration efforts on college campuses and in places like nursing homes.
We also need to keep the pressure on the Rs in Congress to push for stricter laws on voting and voter registration.
-
And I just found this:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/04/politics/voter-id-james-clyburn-cnntv/index.html
Not even a hard-core D is opposed to voter ID. I think it needs to be pushed -- at least for federal elections. If states want to allow their internal elections to be hijacked, that's their problem. Personally, I WANT someone to check my ID when I vote. As I have commented before, if I show up to vote after work and they turn me away because "I" voted earlier in the day -- I'm not going to be a happy camper.
Although, in reality, I think it's more likely that the Ds are just registering dead people and pets, and then submitting mail-in ballots on behalf of the phony registrations. Which is another reason we shouldn't allow mail-in ballots except for a few LIMITED exceptions for absentee ballots.
-
Yeah, just give up. That's the spirit.
Once enough people agree voting no longer works as advertised then they can move on to fixing it and stop just playing along with their own defeat.
-
Not even a hard-core D is opposed to voter ID.
Well, not opposed NOW. He, like may of them in congress, was adamantly opposed to voter ID until very recently. Now that numbers are coming out showing even many left-leaning voters (that aren't BLM, antifa, the MSM, et al) are pro-voter ID, suddenly all these people are reversing course and "explaining what they actually meant". I think the last holdouts might be Pelosi and the squad. =)
I won't be surprised if within a month we'll be hearing and reading in the MSM about how the Republicans have been thwarting voter ID this whole time. Sorta how Psaki is currently gaslighting that it was Republicans calling to defund the police all last year.
-
What's that definition of insanity again? Something about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?
And where exactly did I mention giving up?
If you won't do something that's easy and has no downside, you've obviously given up.
-
What a stupid argument to be having right now.
It's the same arguement I've been making for years: Both parties are irretrievably broken, and by voting R/D when the candidates are laughably corrupt narcissists (at best) you are prolonging a doomed system.
We may be stuck with a two party system, but the parties can (and have in the past) changed, and they need to now.
I'm sorry if you feel that pointing out that your laughably corrupt team isn't worth voting for over the other laughably corrupt team, but maybe make your team less shitty.
-
It's the same arguement I've been making for years: Both parties are irretrievably broken, and by voting R/D when the candidates are laughably corrupt narcissists (at best) you are prolonging a doomed system.
We may be stuck with a two party system, but the parties can (and have in the past) changed, and they need to now.
I'm sorry if you feel that pointing out that your laughably corrupt team isn't worth voting for over the other laughably corrupt team, but maybe make your team less shitty.
Yeah, we're going to bring down the two-party system by not voting. ;/
How crazy that I would strongly prefer the more American-friendly of the two laughable whatevers. How silly of me. Boy I must be one of those starry-eyed party loyalists that can't stand your super-genius-level realism. How dare you crush my dreams? I shall pray to Saint Trump for the salvation of your soul.
The party that has the most influential press organs (and other, uh, organs) in its pocket is going to be the less law-abiding. Makes sense, right?
-
If you won't do something that's easy and has no downside, you've obviously given up.
Giving legitimacy to fraud by participation is a huge downside.
-
I think things are so far gone that it won't get fixed. Lots of people believe. You could show them a video chain showing ballots being printed in China, filled in with slave labor, and then inserted into the system, and they would say that Trump was doing it.
-
Giving legitimacy to fraud by participation is a huge downside.
Do you imagine that by not voting you somehow reduce the legitimacy of fraud? Considering that in US elections between half and two thirds of the eligible voters actually decide the election, your act of abstention is not going to be a blip. Unless you are able to make a public spectacle of your act of not voting it will be as unnoticed and unimportant as any of the other tens of millions of people who didn’t care enough to make it to the polls (or mailbox, for that matter). What you perceive as a high minded act of conscience is utterly lost in a sea of disinterested fellow travelers.
If you simply don’t care to vote, or don’t want to vote for republicans because you believe they are as or more corrupt, that is fine - but it is silly to pretend that by refusing to participate you are in any way effecting change.
Neglecting to vote doesn’t expose fraud, although it may reduce it. If fraud is used by your political opponents then by staying home you are reducing the fraud that must be employed to overcome your vote, and thereby incrementally reduces the chance that such fraud will be detected.
-
Yeah, we're going to bring down the two-party system by not voting. ;/
How crazy that I would strongly prefer the more American-friendly of the two laughable whatevers. How silly of me. Boy I must be one of those starry-eyed party loyalists that can't stand your super-genius-level realism. How dare you crush my dreams? I shall pray to Saint Trump for the salvation of your soul.
The party that has the most influential press organs (and other, uh, organs) in its pocket is going to be the less law-abiding. Makes sense, right?
I never said not to vote, I just said the parties both commit votor fraud, and you said that was a stupid argument to have. I think we could bring the current two parties down by enough folks abandoning them for third parties that either the third part takes over or the existing parties are forced into real change for survival. Both those plans require voting.
IMO, based on what they actually do when in power, the Republicans are not more America friendly, they differ in their power grabbing direction, and drape themselves in a church they clearly don't believe and the flag, but they don't actually accomplish anything that is friendly for liberty.
-
If you won't do something that's easy and has no downside, you've obviously given up.
You're making no sense with this argument.
-
My vote for the purportedly more right candidate is at very best just a nudge in the correct direction. Let's call it virtue signaling =D
Yes, it is discouraging and humiliating having to vote for imperfect candidates who will most likely stab me in the back.
I don't kid myself that there is a political solution. I've disabused myself of that notion.
Voting harder, demonstrating the futility of voting, over and over again, is a potential way of waking more normies up to that reality.
"Red pilling" more of the public about our governing officials, the system itself, showing that even the R's, our side, are the enemy of Americans is a potential feature of our kabuki theater democracy.
The harder we vote, the more they ignore it, the more they obviously steal, the less credibility the politicians and the system will have in the publics eyes.
Too many people conflate our government with the nation. Right now we are being ruled by globalists and foreigners.
We are already a conquered nation.
I don't condemn those who opt out but anything I can do to reduce the credibility of the globalists takeover seems worthwhile.
-
You're making no sense with this argument.
So what is the downside of voting?
-
Giving legitimacy to fraud by participation is a huge downside.
Thank you, Mr. Part of the Problem.
-
I never said not to vote, I just said the parties both commit votor fraud, and you said that was a stupid argument to have. I think we could bring the current two parties down by enough folks abandoning them for third parties that either the third part takes over or the existing parties are forced into real change for survival. Both those plans require voting.
IMO, based on what they actually do when in power, the Republicans are not more America friendly, they differ in their power grabbing direction, and drape themselves in a church they clearly don't believe and the flag, but they don't actually accomplish anything that is friendly for liberty.
Like any other job position, one must apply for the spot. One must be of a mind where having such a position will benefit themselves.
When they do or say whatever is necessary to get that position, how righteous can they be regarding abiding the Constitution? Ever hear anyone campaign on an abide-the-Constitution platform? Me neither. Most will talk a good game to whomever they feel is their best choice for a constituency and it's as far as they go. There is a way to cut the crap in half, though: Repeal the 17th Amendment.
With a Senate that isn't a second house of representatives in practice, at least one house will be in place to protect state sovereignty which will in turn be more apt to protect the rights of the people, be less susceptible to lobbying, no promises to keep to obtain/retain campaign contributions, and a restoration of competition between the states. As it stands with so much usurped power and set standards with all-encompassing regulations concentrated on the federal level, no individual state can set its own standards to attract business and people. A true senate will set the several states free from the bureaucratic alphabet agencies simply by the fact that the senators will be bound by the will of the separate state's legislatures that appoint them.
Woody
-
In the space of four years, we saw conservatives go from being "those people with jobs" to "the evil trumperkluckernazis who MUST be hunted down and destroyed."
That's the problem. ANYTHING is considered to be fair game.
-
In the space of four years, we saw conservatives go from being "those people with jobs" to "the evil trumperkluckernazis who MUST be hunted down and destroyed."
That's the problem. ANYTHING is considered to be fair game.
Meanwhile we are told to just keep playing the rigged game and don't do anything of actual merit or value to oppose tyranny and fraud.
-
Meanwhile we are told to just keep playing the rigged game and don't do anything of actual merit or value to oppose tyranny and fraud.
What do you consider to be of merit to oppose tyranny and fraud? So far all I have seen proposed is staying home on Election Day.
-
There is a philosophy out there called "accelerationist". By either not voting or better yet voting for the worst candidates we can accelerate the collapse of the current system. With the current demographic make up of the country I'm not sure working for system collapse is the wisest course. I think it would be violent, ugly and painful. Patriots won't be taking the reins and saving us in that scenario.
There is a branch of the hidden rulers that want to keep the historic America grift going on a little longer. They're probably a branch of the original founding stock. That's the grift that would mostly leave us alone, maintain the America façade and only lightly fleece us. Trump has been their avatar.
Our group of hidden rulers who actually are now in control want a system reset. They appear to like the direction we've been going, instituting the national panopticon and demographically eliminating the power of the founding stock. It is a much heavier handed totalitarian rule than team Trump. Immigration and "democracy" have been their weapons of choice.
With massive numbers of lower IQ immigrants and higher IQ immigrants with no cultural understanding of the rule of law vs rule of men, of common law, natural rights or the freedom of low church Christianity it will be much easier for them to run their fascist state. Between immigration and massive vote fraud all along they control pretty much the whole kit and caboodle of US institutions.
So yes, voting is participating in kabuki theater democracy. I vote because I'm sure what I support irritates the foreign and globalist rulers.
This is my current working theory subject to modification [tinfoil]
-
Past few elections, I have noticed more and more members of the Student Union Debate Society urging people to not vote, to vote only for perfection, etc., etc...
And you don't really see them before or after the election period.
-
Just get out there and vote. Each and every vote you cast has to be countered by a vote for whatever competition is out there. Your vote for your "candidate" makes it that much more difficult for whomever you don't vote for, even if it is a runaway election for whomever you don't like, an election fraught with fraud, or simply to remove or reduce any claim of a mandate.
Woody
-
Just get out there and vote.
That's a good start but I would also encourage people to go a step farther and get involved in administering the elections and counting the votes. Local clerks are almost always looking for help during elections and then you can see with your own eyes what's happening and how things work. You can't stop fraud everywhere but you can do your part in your municipality. If more people did that instead of whining about it on the internet we'd be in better shape.
-
Meanwhile we are told to just keep playing the rigged game and don't do anything of actual merit or value to oppose tyranny and fraud.
What are the "merit or value" things you're told not to do? Who says so?
-
My father, who was a hard-core Libertarian, told me that he moved to damage control after 9/11, because he figured that Bad Things were about to be heavily promoted. "Don't vote with your heart. Vote for the least worst."
-
Just get out there and vote. Each and every vote you cast has to be countered by a vote for whatever competition is out there. Your vote for your "candidate" makes it that much more difficult for whomever you don't vote for, even if it is a runaway election for whomever you don't like, an election fraught with fraud, or simply to remove or reduce any claim of a mandate.
Woody
The "perfection" thing always triggers me a bit. We have not and will never have perfection. IMO, using that language sets an impossible standard and they will end up rejecting any chance to move things in their direction.
-
At this point I'd probably settle for "not a lying sociopathic criminal", but I'm not sure we have that either.
-
At this point I'd probably settle for "not a lying sociopathic criminal", but I'm not sure we have that either.
Politics runs on reverse Darwinism where the worse rises to the top.
-
If there is absolutely no way for your supported candidate to win an election, then what is the point of voting? And please don't raise that hoary canard about a single vote making a difference.
What good does one Army Ant do?
Or one Pirhana?
Or one Covid19 virus?
If everyone votes, "hopelessness" or not, the more likely "they" will have to push "their" vote-generating machine into higher levels to compensate, which in turn enhances the possibility of proving the voter fraud.
The more robberies a crook pulls, the more likely he will make a mistake.
I know, "yeah, but," "yeah, but," "yeah, but."
But I see every single vote on the conservative side, regardless of hopelessness, as boosting the likelihood of them tripping over their own feet.
And I wish to heck Conservatives would lay off the religious stuff. As fervent as you and I are about our beliefs, I am sure that turns off a lot of sinners/voters.
"Yeah, friggin' but..."
And every time I bring that up, it "triggers" passionate defenses of religion itself, when 90% of the leftist agenda has nothing to do with religion, but with them raising taxes or instituting rent controls or mandating insurance for gun owners, or elevating every little dippy law into a felony...
Did you cross the street against the traffic light? FELONY!
No guns for you for the rest of your life.
"Why, we ought to make crossing the street a felony," said Councilwoman Miranda Veracruz de la Jolla Cardinál, adding "It's for the children."
Terry, 230RN
-
I agree on voting. Even if you are very selective about who you vote for, I think you should go ahead and do that.
As for "religious stuff", what exactly do you mean? I see few politicians making that a big part of their platform. The ones who make a bigger deal of it are usually the worst because they can't talk about economics or constitutional rights.
-
- stop talking about religion stuff-
Terry, 230RN
Every decision in life is influenced by ones foundational first principles, unprovable assumptions, epistemology and cosmology. Only a small number of people have actually tried to work that stuff out purposefully and consciously. Just because most people acquired their "beliefs" by cultural osmosis doesn't mean we shouldn't challenge those beliefs. The edifice is collapsing due to foundation problems.
The enemy loves to argue with those who are right when the those who are willing to right cede the First principles, epistemology etc. before the battle even begins. How about we stop trying to win on the leftist/globalist chosen field of battle?
Ceding away the foundational basis of the nations of the western world in defense of the western world is self defeating.
The American right is just a subset of the progressive/leftist/democrat system. There is little difference between them due to their sharing all their foundational beliefs.
The American right wants to slow down or pause, the American left wants to change. They both are going the same direction. That includes libertarians.
The progressive/communist/fascist/evil agenda is just the natural conclusion of their foundational beliefs. The right by and large shares those foundational beliefs but refuses to stare into that abyss.
-
MechAg94:
"As for 'religious stuff,' what exactly do you mean? I see few politicians making that a big part of their platform. The ones who make a bigger deal of it are usually the worst because they can't talk about economics or constitutional rights."
Think "clinging to their guns and their Bibles."
E.g.
Don't give them that kind of opening to fling insults like that. Their useful idiots eat that kind of stuff up and it soaks into the consciousness of the general public.
Naturally, most politicians don't generally make that part of their platform.
Terry
-
Think "clinging to their guns and their Bibles."
E.g.
Don't give them that kind of opening to fling insults like that. Their useful idiots eat that kind of stuff up and it soaks into the consciousness of the general public.
That "insult" is mocking people who care about gun ownership and are religiously observant. If that mockery hurts the cause (or your feelings), as far as I can see the only way to stop it from being relevant is to stop caring about guns and stop being religiously observant. But if mocking something makes you abandon it so readily, they'll mock everything about you that they disagree with until you are just like them. Then they will hate you for not being like them sooner.
Also, why do you only get the ickies from the "Bible" side of that comment? Shouldn't we also stop caring about guns too so they can't use that against us?
-
Once again, "putting words in my mouth."
That's getting to be a standard technique around APS.
I'm not just icky about the bible part, I'm icky about the general slander inherent in that whole statement and many other characterizations of the right.
I'm really icky about us sticking our chins out for them to throw a left cross.
-
Once again, "putting words in my mouth."
That's getting to be a standard technique around APS.
I'm not just icky about the bible part, I'm icky about the general slander inherent in that whole statement and many other characterizations of the right.
I'm really icky about us sticking our chins out for them to throw a left cross.
Not sure what words you think I put into your mouth - and I certainly don’t want to do that. You said you wish conservatives would lay off the religious stuff. When asked about what you meant because few politicians make religion part of their platform, you pointed to the fact that Obama called conservative voters people who wanted to cling to their Bibles and guns. Because in your eyes that was an effective slur, you want people to … what exactly? I mean specifically. How should conservative voters change to prevent ourselves from “sticking our chin out”?
You keep bringing this up but I have apparently missed where you explained what you actually meant. I remember one crack about how it would be better for Christians to hide their light or something, but apparently by that you meant … something other than the obvious, I guess.
But again, if your big example of how religiosity is hurting our cause references Bibles and guns specifically, should we not also lay off the gun stuff (whatever that would mean in this context)? Are we not leading with our chins regarding guns too?
-
Well, what frosts my donut is the organization which the left has - and once they make a declaration, that's it...
Coup. Insurrection.
And they think that Trump was responsible for the arson and looting that happens during their Peaceful Protests.
THEY REALLY DO.
-
MechAg94:
"As for 'religious stuff,' what exactly do you mean? I see few politicians making that a big part of their platform. The ones who make a bigger deal of it are usually the worst because they can't talk about economics or constitutional rights."
Think "clinging to their guns and their Bibles."
E.g.
Don't give them that kind of opening to fling insults like that. Their useful idiots eat that kind of stuff up and it soaks into the consciousness of the general public.
Naturally, most politicians don't generally make that part of their platform.
Terry
I never considered that statement an "insult". I just considered it a foolish comment from an extremely arrogant politician. I think it was genuinely something he hadn't intended for public consumption and the public reaction was against him not with him.
I really don't know why you think Christians should believe their faith is something they should hide for fear it will be the target of insults. So long as someone is honest about their beliefs and confident in those beliefs, none of that should matter. The only people who need fear that are those that are just grandstanding beliefs for public consumption and don't really believe what they are saying. Those are people who earn ridicule.
As for "useful idiots", there is a limit to how much I really care about what stupid people think of me. Politicians should behave the same way if they are smart. I think that is one of the big reasons why Trump pulled in so much support. He didn't apologize or backtrack when useful idiots in the media attacked him. He just kept moving forward. People respect that even if they don't agree on issues.
-
nm
-
And I wish to heck Conservatives would lay off the religious stuff. As fervent as you and I are about our beliefs, I am sure that turns off a lot of sinners/voters.
Terry, 230RN
It turns out this may be a uniquely good time for politicians to talk about religion, and signal support for religious citizens who vote. Here are a few reasons:
It's only a matter of months since American churches were legally required to close, or restricted in ways that other public places were not. Pastors in Florida (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/31/florida-megachurch-pastor-arrested-for-breaching-covid-19-health-order) and Louisiana (https://www.foxnews.com/us/louisiana-pastor-who-defied-coronavirus-order-arrested-on-misdemeanor-charges) were actually arrested over this stuff. Some church-goers in Nevada actually held at least one service in a casino (https://thepostmillennial.com/christians-hold-church-in-casinos-as-restrictions-on-worship-are-tighter-than-those-on-gambling), as the state allowed more occupancy there, than at a place of worship. Churches in California were also treated as non-essential, and faced tighter restrictions than other public places, until the courts stepped in (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-02/california-to-pay-legal-fees-over-church-coronavirus-closures). Also, the Vice-President of the guy who tried to force nuns to pay for birth control was just installed in the Oval Office.
Across the border, Canadian authorities shut down a non-compliant church, and went so far as to build a fence around it. (https://www.breitbart.com/health/2021/04/07/canadian-church-shut-down-fenced-following-coronavirus-rules/) I guess fences aren't racist there. They jailed the pastor for a month, too. A church in Manitoba might be facing a million in fines. Another guy (https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/26/canadian-father-jailed-for-talking-about-court-ordered-transgendering-of-his-teenage-daughter/) in Canada is in jail for "misgendering" his daughter. Which is to say, he refuses to misgender her, by referring to her as a boy.
The point here isn't a "defense of religion," or to whine or complain. The point is, if a significant portion of your constituents feel as if they're under siege, it makes sense politically to court their vote.