"Trump wasn't president during Jade Helm".....But that is exactly what I mean; Why hasn't Trump RESCUED all the Texans confined to ONE Walmart? He has been in office for four years and hasn't done anything for those poor Texans that Obama had rounded up and thrown in ONE Walmart!
>>Also, why did the US Military work with the Communist Chinese army to invade Texas when>>>>>"Obama HATES the Military and the Military HATES him!!!!!!"....? (Seems kind of CONTRADICTORY...Doesn't it?)
Aren't Texans Americans? Shouldn't Trump be helping them?
As far as News outlets, I know that you guys only want to listen to outlets that constantly tell you how SMART you are, how good looking you are....Just like the Used car salesmen who tell you that and STROKES your ego before selling you a pile of crap.........
[This message has been edited by cvxjet (edited 11-25-2020).]
"Trump wasn't president during Jade Helm".....But that is exactly what I mean; Why hasn't Trump RESCUED all the Texans confined to ONE Walmart? He has been in office for four years and hasn't done anything for those poor Texans that Obama had rounded up and thrown in ONE Walmart!
>>Also, why did the US Military work with the Communist Chinese army to invade Texas when>>>>>"Obama HATES the Military and the Military HATES him!!!!!!"....? (Seems kind of CONTRADICTORY...Doesn't it?)
Aren't Texans Americans? Shouldn't Trump be helping them?
As far as News outlets, I know that you guys only want to listen to outlets that constantly tell you how SMART you are, how good looking you are....Just like the Used car salesmen who tell you that and STROKES your ego before selling you a pile of crap.........
Do you have any evidence to support that people were confined to a Walmart somewhere in Texas by US troops or perhaps are you just making crap up again?
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-25-2020).]
I'll just have to assume you aren't serious, and that you don't also think the mainstream news isn't liberally slanted.
My comment was serious.
The news is slanted, sure. Every time a news anchor provides an opinion, you have to dial it down. This goes for any news network. They are humans who keep up with what's going on, and they're going to have opinions. But Trump actually does say things that are absolutely ridiculous. He lies to the public, frequently. He props up conspiracy theories, with no evidence. So it's hard for any reasonable person to watch this happen for years, and not have opinions leak through. People are calling Fox a liberal news network now... Fox?? They are not liberal, they just see Trump's lies for what they are, and they can't just let that go if they want any ounce of credibility. I've seen people calling Don a liberal for believing in COVID, even though he said he (regrettably) voted for Trump. That's not "liberal," that's just not willingly eating out of the trash as it's being taken out.
The appropriate answer is not to find a source that backs your worldview up, or read sources and just mix them in a pot with no regard for credibility (OANN is not a credible source of information). We should read multiple sources just so we can ensure we have a comprehensive view of the facts. Go ahead and disregard any opinion commentary and form your own.
But here's the kicker to all of this... none of what I just said above has anything to do with any news network calling the election. You and I both know: they have no actual power. Why would it benefit any news organization to prematurely call an election, and end up being wrong? Their job during the election is to keep the public updated on what's going on, and they did that. They kept the public updated, and when any state, for either candidate, was close enough to have a clear idea of where the state would fall, they let the public know that. So far, they've been right on every single state. Again, it doesn't benefit them to be wrong. So when the Associated Press calls the election for Biden, does that mean Biden is officially elected by the electoral college? No. But it does mean: the people voted, votes have been tallied and reported, and barring any egregious errors, Biden will be the POTUS come January 20.
Are you suggesting that saying that sentence is slanted news?
EDIT: I'll make the offer again. For any who don't think Biden won, I'll bet you $1,000 that Trump will not be the President of the United States on January 21, 2021. Are you willing to make that bet, or deep down do you know that Trump lost?
[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 11-25-2020).]
Hell, I've been to Walmart. Half of the people there should be detained or confined for one reason or another.
Now that is funny (And sadly....TRUE!) (Wait, I go to Walmart......Hmmmmmm)
MJ, of course there is no evidence of Texans confined to a Walmart....the whole Jade Helm thing was a Hoax pushed by Vlad to see how receptive Fox/OAN watchers were to any BS they were told by the Russian-controlled "Media"......You guys passed with Flying colors!!! So then Vlady knew he could get you to believe ANYTHING....
How much ammo did you buy back in 2015 while running around screaming that Obama was going to invade Texas?
You see the mail-in ballots went 97% Biden, not Trump. 97% to one candidate is statistically impossible.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that those are officially documented figures, it should come as no surprise that the mail-in ballots were 97% in favor of Biden.
Trump has pooh-poohed the danger of COVID-19 ever since the start of the pandemic. Trump's supporters followed his example. They weren't concerned that going to polling stations was potentially a health risk. Probably very few Trump supporters bothered with mail-in ballots.
Biden, on the other hand, heeded the warnings of medical experts and took precautions against this virus. Biden's supporters followed his example. They had concerns about going to polling stations. Therefore, Biden supporters welcomed the use of mail-in ballots, as it nullified the potential health risk of going to the polls.
"97% to one candidate is statistically impossible"? Perhaps for any previous election... but in 2020, very possible indeed!
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that those are officially documented figures, it should come as no surprise that the mail-in ballots were 97% in favor of Biden.
<snip>
"97% to one candidate is statistically impossible"? Perhaps for any previous election... but in 2020, very possible indeed!
This is where the "plausibility" works. Every other election was different, but 2020? Nope, perfectly normal 97% went to one candidate because Trump. This is why the fraud will work unless every single ballot in those few counties have the signature verified by impartial refs. Or even partial refs as long as all sides are represented. Any disagreements can be judged by SCOTUS if needed.
Maybe the US needs some advice then on how to properly run an election... from countries such as Venezuela. or maybe Iraq.
All this talk of election "fraud". It's making the US look bad in the eyes of the world. Is it all really worth it, dragging the entire country down... just because your candidate came up short?
Maybe the US needs some advice then on how to properly run an election... from countries such as Venezuela. or maybe Iraq.
All this talk of election "fraud". It's making the US look bad in the eyes of the world. Is it all really worth it, dragging the entire country down... just because your candidate came up short?
Here is the rub. Today it's the Democrats. What happens tomorrow when it IS my candidate? Do I sit back and say "Shut up! Accept the results!" like we are hearing now? Would you be quiet if it was the Republicans who did this? Free and fair elections are a must or we are destined to be just like Venezuela or Iraq.
Having grown up surrounded by True Believers, I know firsthand that the danger comes from the origin of their beliefs. Their worldviews are not shaped by facts or research, but by the good feeling they derive from their sense of belonging and the rush of being right, even if no one outside their group agrees ― perhaps especially if no one outside their group agrees.
And here's the Kenneth Copeland referred to in the article...
Oh, it's only NOW that the US is tarnishing it's reputation?
The election was exactly like an internet trolling forum. It's a race to the bottom and fairness and honest have to be eliminated to achieve the result that the larger group of trolls wants. Trump is a master troll who would win in an honest election (again) against a nobody candidate, but he falsely thought he could count on having a fair result count in the key swing states.
The systemic corruption is larger than he is. Time to get back to starting endless wars for other nations, forcing homosexuality onto other nations and creating endless debt.
Trump is a master troll who would win in an honest election...
That's a disturbing comment on several levels.
quote
Originally posted by sourmash:
The systemic corruption is larger than he is. Time to get back to starting endless wars for other nations, forcing homosexuality onto other nations and creating endless debt.
You mention "forcing homosexuality onto other nations" in the same breath as "starting endless wars" and "creating endless debt".
You were just being facetious, right?
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 11-26-2020).]
This is a Jerry Springer environment in the US. Thanks Jerry. Trump trolled his way to the position, wouldn't you agree?
I guess you might be right that the US is homo raping other nations. fedgov pressures other nations to promote homosexual marriage and reforms. Afghan and Iraq wars are closing on their 2nd decade and we're constantly being pushed to start a war with Iran. For 30 years now we've been hearing it's 6 months from a nuke bomb. National debt is 27 trillion. That's already unpayable.
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 11-26-2020).]
This is a Jerry Springer environment in the US. Thanks Jerry. Trump trolled his way to the position, wouldn't you agree?
I (along with probably the rest of the civilized world) have no idea how an individual such as Trump was able to become the president of the US. It's absolutely mind boggling.
quote
Originally posted by sourmash:
fedgov pressures other nations to promote homosexual marriage and reforms.
Whether true or not, I hardly feel that same-sex reforms rate right up there with creating wars and endless debt.
quote
Originally posted by sourmash:
I guess you might be right that the US is homo raping other nations.
Ummm... I don't know where that came from... and it's a little too bizarre for my comfort level.
How he got there is simple and totally predictable, so I'm surprised that some don't see it. US Pres is a game show contest now. They also don't have the power of 40 years ago. Some of the reasons he won are listed above and below. The pandering losers that are forced onto the people who later undercut the will of the people are a reason. Open borders kicked it off for Trump. Boy Scouts being forced to accept homo leadership? Trannies allowed to use opposite sex bathrooms with voter's children? These aren't wholesome values and the silenced silent majority had someone who voiced that, even if he's a head case.
He ran against a woman who had top secret docs removed from US servers, walked them to her house and installed them on an unsecured server where foreign nationals were hacking/viewing them while she was running a "charitable" org that wasn't disbursing the foreign donations it received in a way that qualified as charitable. That's espionage. Even the law is worded saying intent to spy doesn't have to be proven. Negligence is all that has to be shown according to the wording. Anthony Weiner had these top secret docs on the lap top that he was using to send pics of his pecker to teen-aged girls. He didn't have the clearance and got them through his wife who also didn't have the clearance. The ***** cackled about having Khadafi killed. She would've been hanged by the founding fathers.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
Ummm... I don't know where that came from... and it's a little too bizarre for my comfort level.
fedgov forced homo marriage on the USA too. Twenty-six States amended their CONSTITUTIONS or passed legislation limiting recognition of "marriage" to the traditional 1 man and 1 woman definition. Homos moved into these states and sued in federal court to overturn this. They continue to push this agenda in foreign nations.
I (along with probably the rest of the civilized world) have no idea how an individual such as Trump was able to become the president of the US. It's absolutely mind boggling.
People got tired of being called a racist, homophobe, misogynist, xenophobe, islamaphobe and any other -ist and -phobe out there. Identity Politics finally managed to put more people in the "bad" columns than the "good" columns. The irony was the Democrats then asking for my vote even though they hate me. Well FU.
The funny thing is the so called "allies". They hate you too.
more concisely put than I did, hudini. We're ruled by a collective of special interest groups now.
Our newly elected Republican Rep or State senator is a homosexual, so it wasn't a limiting feature of his being. People in my circle obviously grew up with people who turned out as they did and we're still who we were back then. People just left it where it belongs. How a person performs a sexual act is not of unique importance for anyone else to know. People wanted to preserve marriage as it has always been, though. 10 people in a court room decided that can't be.
Tell me about it. I see the "leftist" label attached to anyone here who doesn't goosestep in unison with the majority of O/T contributors.
I don't know your political preference but for an American President, who would be your (fairly) ideal one? The caveat being that you can't choose one who doesn't support the original Constitution which includes the first 10 ammendments.
I'm not so worried about who marries who because marriage is a man-made institution designed to designate who gets the land and money (the legitimate heirs vs the illegitimate). What I do not agree with is trying to force churches to accept it as normal when the bible teaches it is a sin. You do you but leave those folks alone.
Tell me about it. I see the "leftist" label attached to anyone here who doesn't goosestep in unison with the majority of O/T contributors.
A leftist is someone left of center on the political spectrum. A leftist is not a "Nazi" who deserves to be physically attacked because of his beliefs. I think you are a normal Canadian Liberal who likes paying high taxes to get the healthcare, retirement system, and other big government programs. You trust your government to decide what is best for you and surrender your guns and liberties for government protection. That is fine. I just don't agree with this. But I would never harm you because you like Justin Trudeau. But if I like Trump, OMG! Nazi! smh
Hudini, unfortunately your post is nothing but a string of generalizations.
Let me make one thing clear though... I don't dislike Trump because he heads the Republican Party. I dislike Trump due to his personal lack of character and moral fiber.
Bible scripture dictates marriage law as well, so it's not just man's law. It says man shall not lay with man as with a woman, so it's clear what marriage is. All of eternity has agreed on what marriage is until now.
quote
Originally posted by Hudini:
I'm not so worried about who marries who because marriage is a man-made institution designed to designate who gets the land and money (the legitimate heirs vs the illegitimate). What I do not agree with is trying to force churches to accept it as normal when the bible teaches it is a sin. You do you but leave those folks alone.
But it was a method of tying a woman and man to the responsibilities for deflowering women, producing children and support of the same. Men couldn't take the dowry, borrow the goods and then dump it because others wouldn't want tarnished items. Children get sold off or bartered with no support system. The tradition remains.
I also care who marries who, but I don't care if two homosexuals enter a similar civil union contract that isn't called "marriage". Erosion of an age old beneficial traditional social construct is on my "for it" list.
I care if .gov forces a business owner to provide services to that couple against their will, for religious convictions or not. Going way back, I support a property owner determining who he wants to enter into a contract with for a renter/tenant.
Hudini, unfortunately your post is nothing but a string of generalizations.
Let me make one thing clear though... I don't dislike Trump because he heads the Republican Party. I dislike Trump due to his personal lack of character and moral fiber.
And Hilary Clinton & Biden? What is your ideal President, and it has to be someone who supports the Constitution as written with the original Bill of Rights which are the first 10 amends.
I've never liked Hilary Clinton. I'm only vaguely familiar with Joe Biden. What I do know of Donald Trump, he's a pig.
quote
Originally posted by sourmash:
What is your ideal President...
What are you looking for... names? Sorry, can't help you there... but I'd like to think that in a nation of 331 million people that there'd be at least one person capable of running the country who isn't a senior citizen!
What are you looking for... names? Sorry, can't help you there... but I'd like to think that in a nation of 331 million people that there'd be at least one person capable of running the country who isn't a senior citizen!
Not sure why PFF doesn't capture the entire quote, but anyway. The Donald isn't my ideal choice. But there were only 2 choices. Biden, and just as importantly, Biden/Harris was the other choice this cycle. Biden isn't even predicted to complete a 4 year term. Harris is an anti-gunner partial Canadian with no traditional history tied to the USA.
You don't have to pick a name. Are you familiar with the Bill of Rights and that it was the only reason the constitution was ratified? And would your ideal President support those 10 amendments?
Hudini, unfortunately your post is nothing but a string of generalizations.
Let me make one thing clear though... I don't dislike Trump because he heads the Republican Party. I dislike Trump due to his personal lack of character and moral fiber.
Why are my generalizations unfortunate?
Of the people I know who hate Trump it's all about his word usage. I do think he is his own worst enemy in that regard. He never acted Presidential and that upset many folks. I do agree with most of his policies though. If only he could have left Twitter alone and not attacked everyone who attacked him. Let the policies do the talking and stop bragging. Oh well. He accomplished more than you and I ever could.
lol
