A possible scenario of the next 2 years

Al Gore didn't accept anything.
The surpreme court put an end to Al Gore's shenanigans other wise we would still be debating hanging Chad's. Same with Hillary and host of others like Stacy Abrams.
 
I have long thought that anyone that really wants that office is suspect, just by wanting it. It's just that some appear more trustworthy than others. The most damaging thing that Trump did was to not participate in the peaceful transition of power. Al Gore (who did not invent the internet) stopped any further action in the election where he won the popular vote, but not the electoral vote because he understood history, and the damage such a challenge could cause. He put the country first, not himself, or his party. And, that kind of thinking is in short supply these days.

I am less certain that Gore's legal decisions at any particular Point were quite so altruistic. I agree that kind of thinking is in short supply these days.

I'm still on the fence about the election and cheating. I reserved the right to suspect that many more things happened than could be proved. At least keep in mind the general fact of life that out of all the dishonest or manipulative things that people do, the vast super majority of them always go undetected. It is only a tiny fraction that are approved or exposed.

That said, I am certainly willing to let many things go if we could just move on in some kind of a way that's not just totally giving up on justice.

I am willing to assume that Trump has also gotten away with bad things as most famous and rich people have and that he probably has occasionally manipulated situations for his benefit. I definitely do not see it as if he is far worse or even at all worse than most other major politicians. I think his general policies were good but they were extremely disturbing and disruptive to too many people and so the laser focus on his behavior and actions made it seem like he was something especially bad, but I don't think he was any different than average, I think he was just under the focus. It's a matter of perception I guess or at least it could be?

The general trend of the world toward pursuing philosophies that justify whatever feels good or comforting rather than what is right/ true has not been good for us. And it has caused us to be extremely confused about even a semblance of the concepts of right and wrong to the point where two people who both have communities that think of them as very upstanding citizens can be diametrically opposed on dozens of issues.

It's a tough time in that sense.

Even though I have rarely found anyone who agrees with me on this, I remain very suspicious that it's possible the only viable future for the United States is to split into two countries.

Honestly? I don't think that statement is extreme nor violent nor inconsiderate. I think it is one of the kindest and softest possible outcomes.

If the country generally is divided among people who tend to think the other person's philosophies are exactly the opposite of what is best, I just struggle to see a whole bunch of other ways forward sometimes.

I think this viewpoint is actually the gentler softer way. My other option would be hoping that I can persuade or Force my way of thinking on everyone else, but isn't that considered less noble?

Does a culture ever get to such an distinctly divided point to where separation actually makes more sense and is kinder than all other options?

Think about a marriage...
 
Speaking of Gore didn't his wife give us the record label warning? So according to liberals kids have to shielded from offense lyrics but they can get lap dances from trannies, makes sense.
 
Speaking of Gore didn't his wife give us the record label warning? So according to liberals kids have to shielded from offense lyrics but they can get lap dances from trannies, makes sense.

Does it seem like there is a trend where liberals invent pejorative terms and then totally live them out themselves?
Gaslighting has got to be near the top of that list!

I can't tell you how many articles I read recently with subtitles that read something like this
"You all have been being entertained by drag shows your whole life. Why start objecting now?"

I'm just like, pardon my french, but wtf??

Um, no we haven't.

That's how they see the 2020 election stealing I guess.

Ok. So conservatives have something that arguably is being repeated over and over with according to some people, no evidence.

But that persistent repeating of the most ridiculous untrue things ever, that's like a hallmark of a half dozen liberal philosophies right now!

I really think we have reached a certain point in this country. I just can't quite tell how to define it!
 
Speaking of Gore didn't his wife give us the record label warning? So according to liberals kids have to shielded from offense lyrics but they can get lap dances from trannies, makes sense.
That's just an example of what I say about the moral anchor or the lack thereof and the constantly changing definitions. Everything is relative. They all thought she was right then, they all think the opposite now. And if you don't believe it's true and agree and if you don't pretend to think that it has always been that way, you're some kind of a bad person
 
Couldn't find anything regarding your first point about the troop withdrawals.
I posted a link to one story about it. Here it is again.

Joint Chiefs Chair Milley Undermined Trump, Pentagon Officials on Afghanistan: Report | Newsmax.com

but I probably would a voted for her because I knew how Trump operated, from personal experience 25 years ago
But we also knew how Hillary operated also:
1. She continued to run the Clinton foundation to rake in millions in foreign donations while she was Secretary of State even though Obama told her to shut it down when he gave her the job. Apparently, like the Bidens, they were raking in too much money using their influence selling scheme that got them money for favors. This is what you all accused Trump of. You insisted that his hotel business was a scam. I know his hotels are expensive but he didn't have a special rate for foreigners who stayed there and they got what they paid for. A very nice room for the night NOT special favors such as approving the sale of nationally important resources such as uranium mines. Unlike the Clinton foundation and the Biden family, the hotels were not a criminal money washing enterprise.
2. When asked to turn over her unsecured server that held government email marked secret, she just went through it and deleted everything she didn't want the government to see. Hmmmm. Wonder what would have happened if Trump had done that.
3. When she was woken up in the middle of the night to handle the Benghazi raid, she REFUSED to send in marines to evacuate the people at the embassy. She LET THEM DIE. That's my kind of president:poop::poop::poop::poop::poop::poop:

So, in 2016, the choice was between a philandering loud mouth with excellent management experience and a known traitor.

I don't think the first indictment of Trump has much meaning, it's more of a circus, but the others are pretty serious.
I guess you mean the "armed insurrection" where we have Trump reminding the crowd to be PEACEFUL plus 40,000!!!!! hours of video of people walking around admiring the art and taking selfies while the Capitol police open locked doors for the people. So, once they were inside, they actually were peaceful. We have a small group of people who broke doors and windows and engaged in violence with the police who are serving ridiculously long sentences given that we do not arrest ANTIFA and BLM people for the EXACT same crimes, but most people who entered the Capitol didn't even know there was violence anywhere because the police opened the doors for them and let them just walk in. Why are the PTB pushing LIES about "armed". They are calling people who were carrying flags "armed" because the flags could be used as weapons?? I haven't seen any reports of people being arrested for carrying guns although I'm sure there were a few although none were fired. Really???? who goes to an insurrection without a gun? Would you leave your house naked? Don't you know that most Republicans own guns? Why did they leave them home if they were intending to overthrow the government? Where were all the AK's? Do you really think the protesters were that stupid? I know that Democrats believe that Republicans are hateful white supremacists who want to overthrow the government. But are they really so stupid that they would go to an "insurrection" without the guns you keep trying to take away from them? Stop listening to the talking heads who are lying to you and think for yourself. All it takes is a little critical analysis

He always tries not to pay his bills,
ALWAYS is a big word. He sure has a lot of buildings standing so I'm pretty sure at least some bills were paid or no one would ever take a job working on other buildings. Again, I say, THINK for yourself. You see reports of Trump businesses being sued "lots" of times. Do they EVER give a summary of which he won and which he lost? No, that would change the dialog. It is best that you never know when Trump is ever right about anything lest you stop just believing that he is the evil orange man. Do we care how many times the Hiltons were sued for similar reasons or any other hotel chain? No because we don't care. It is also best we have no rational comparison of just how "bad" that evil orange man is. The reporting on Trump is ALWAYS negative. That is the point. Evil orange man bad. PERIOD!
 
Last edited:
I've started to warm up to your positions , @jpl458 and I continue re-examining my own to try to ensure they're not based on anything false or inappropriate amount of bias.
That said, I think it's safe to say you will get nowhere trying to convince most conservatives to compare and contrast things with other well known Democrat politicians. IMO there is enough evidence for 10 lifetimes to put the Clintons and the Bidens in prison for a long time.

The best I can hope to agree on is that there is corruption and dishonesty everywhere, which is why, again, I tend to focus on Policies rather than People. Sometimes I can't resist the temptation to adulate or eschew based on the Person, but I strive to avoid it as much as I can, as it leads nowhere as far as the national conversation.

We must try as hard as we can to think of "where is this POLICY leading", "where is this line-of-thought taking us as a nation", rather than, "do I like that person?"
 
Major news over the last few days of evidence of bribery by Joe Biden, but... @ColinEssex .... You won't know about it unless you watch or read a conservative outlet like Fox because all the other networks refuse to cover it even though he may be pretty close to charges.

This is why I say it's not like I'm married to or loyal to only Fox, but I'm sorry to say if you're not reading them, you're missing a lot of what's actually going on.

If you don't know that, then fine, now you know. If you do know that and still don't read them, that tells me quite a bit as well.
 
Is Fox talking about the bribery? I'm surprised. I stopped watching when they fired Tucker. NewsMax is covering the story though.
 
Word meanings to a liberal are "fluid" based on relative morality and politics.





I decided to review a couple of older threads to see what I had missed. This clip showed an example of how congress can sometimes ask irrelevant questions.

The question was "Define a woman." Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson didn't answer correctly as far as Sen. Blackburn was concerned, but I have the answer that would have demonstrated the duplicity in the senator's question. The answer should have been, "When I'm acting as a judge, justice is blind. In that context I don't know what a woman is. I only know what a citizen is. Or did you wish to have prejudice introduced into law?"
 
The reason Judge Ketanji Brown could not answer the question, "define a woman" is obvious. Liberals put party and power above everything else including logic.
 
Major news over the last few days of evidence of bribery by Joe Biden, but... @ColinEssex .... You won't know about it unless you watch or read a conservative outlet like Fox because all the other networks refuse to cover it even though he may be pretty close to charges.

This is why I say it's not like I'm married to or loyal to only Fox, but I'm sorry to say if you're not reading them, you're missing a lot of what's actually going on.

If you don't know that, then fine, now you know. If you do know that and still don't read them, that tells me quite a bit as well.
You realize they only have 1 FD-1023 from someone who spoke to someone who says they have tapes.

If I called the FBI and said Isaac was planning on blowing up the world trade center they would fill out an FD-1023 which is a form used to document Unverified information.

Where's the tapes? An FD-1023 is not evidence and would be inadmissible.
 
I decided to review a couple of older threads to see what I had missed. This clip showed an example of how congress can sometimes ask irrelevant questions.

The question was "Define a woman." Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson didn't answer correctly as far as Sen. Blackburn was concerned, but I have the answer that would have demonstrated the duplicity in the senator's question. The answer should have been, "When I'm acting as a judge, justice is blind. In that context I don't know what a woman is. I only know what a citizen is. Or did you wish to have prejudice introduced into law?"
Justice may be "blind", but the hypothetical answer suggested as the appropriate response makes no sense. How can Brown hypothetically respond that she knows what a "citizen" is, but not a "woman"? As I previously wrote: "Word meanings to a liberal are "fluid" based on relative morality and politics."

Additionally, how do you even get into having "prejudice introduced into law"?
Today, we actually have prejudice induced into our legal system. One legal theme that has unfortunately caught-on is that of a "disparate" impact. It's permissible for certain groups of people to be defined as legally exempt from the consequences of breaking the law due to the law having a claimed "disparate" impact. Along those lines, the U.S. Supreme Court may soon issue a decision concerning Asian students who have been discriminated against on college admissions, even though we have laws claiming to endorse equal rights.
 
Is Fox talking about the bribery? I'm surprised. I stopped watching when they fired Tucker. NewsMax is covering the story though.

Of course, the bribery remains one of the top most news coverage - especially now that there is audio proof.
 
The question was "Define a woman." Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson didn't answer correctly as far as Sen. Blackburn was concerned, but I have the answer that would have demonstrated the duplicity in the senator's question. The answer should have been, "When I'm acting as a judge, justice is blind. In that context I don't know what a woman is. I only know what a citizen is. Or did you wish to have prejudice introduced into law?"

Except knowing what a woman is absolutely IS germaine to the practice of law and judicial posts.

In many jurisdictions, if 2 spouses both accuse the other of domestic violence, the "man" is automatically deemed the agressor, for reasons that are appallingly inadequate and I won't defend or explain, but you can google it.

If you can't tell what a woman is, how would that be applied?

If you can't tell what a woman is, what happens with pregnant defendants being sentenced, or custody battles in which (again, unfortunately and immorally), the woman is presumed to get custody?
 
Major news over the last few days of evidence of bribery by Joe Biden, but... @ColinEssex .... You won't know about it unless you watch or read a conservative outlet like Fox. . . .
I'm not sure we get Fox news here, I've never seen it.
Although, I'm not surprised about bribery in US politics, I mentioned a few weeks back that it seems every politician is on the take or bribing those that matter to further their ill-gotten gains. That's why Trump will be found not guilty and will grease palms to get in the white house. Money will buy you anything in the USA and with his bottomless pit, the presidency is secured.
Col
 
I'm not sure we get Fox news here, I've never seen it.
Although, I'm not surprised about bribery in US politics, I mentioned a few weeks back that it seems every politician is on the take or bribing those that matter to further their ill-gotten gains. That's why Trump will be found not guilty and will grease palms to get in the white house. Money will buy you anything in the USA and with his bottomless pit, the presidency is secured.
Col

Does it work to type in foxnews.com in your browser and hit Enter?

But Trump lost in 2020 and is losing again now? How is the presidency secured? I don't understand.

Biden, the one with arguably a lot less money, won - and is also the one winning on the legal aspects of avoiding prosecution.

Help me understand your viewpoint here?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom