Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

TRUMP TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great and Positive Place


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Honestly, I've never seen you take a conservative position in a discussion.  I don't keep a notebook on people like some do though.

Unlikely that I’ve posted anything positive  about the GOP the last 4 years so that’s not surprising. I’ve been very vocal about where I stand on Trump and I feel most of what I said about him has come to fruition. And I’ve been very disappointed to see the GOP follow along with him. I absolutely do not align with the current Republican version of conservatism but that doesn’t mean I don’t have conservative values. I’m far more centrist though than conservative though. I haven’t been a true conservative since early 2000s when I was on the Buchanon train. 

Edited by Ilov80s
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

Unlikely that I’ve posted anything positive  about the GOP the last 4 years so that’s not surprising. I’ve been very vocal about where I stand on Trump and I feel most of what I said about him has come to fruition. And I’ve been very disappointed to see the GOP follow along with him. I absolutely do not align with the current Republican version of conservatism but that doesn’t mean I don’t have conservative values. 

What are some "conservative" positions you support that you THINK the current version doesn't have?

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Unlikely that I’ve posted anything positive  about the GOP the last 4 years so that’s not surprising. I’ve been very vocal about where I stand on Trump and I feel most of what I said about him has come to fruition. And I’ve been very disappointed to see the GOP follow along with him. I absolutely do not align with the current Republican version of conservatism but that doesn’t mean I don’t have conservative values. I’m far more centrist though than conservative though. I haven’t been a true conservative since early 2000s when I was on the Buchanon train. 

That's a quick backtrack from you having a lot of conservative principles. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Trump is such a reprehensible person and so poorly handled the pandemic that some conservatives that always vote republican bailed on him while still voting for the other republicans on the ballot. 

I know that some of my conservative friends and family that voted for him in 2016 didn't in 2020.  That certainly doesn't make them liberal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

What are some "conservative" positions you support that you THINK the current version doesn't have?

Balanced budget. Massive big business tax cuts during a financial boom seems unlikely to get our debt under control. 

Placing the ideas of the Constitution and our Democratic processes above all others to defend the citizens from the government. Defending the election, rights to free speech, rights to protest, etc. Protesters have been violent but the rhetoric on the right has been extremely hostile. Advocating for violence and force from police against citizens. Trying to disenfranchise millions of voters in States because they are unhappy with the outcome.

The importance of family and traditional family values. I’m anti-abortion personally. Freedom of religion is important. 

A failure to protect the future and the assets of the country through a denial of climate change. 

Smaller government. 

Free trade.

Emphasis on local control. 

I believe in reasonable gun control but definitely support the 2nd and think people should be able to have guns. 

Edited by Ilov80s
  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Godsbrother said:

I think that Trump is such a reprehensible person and so poorly handled the pandemic that some conservatives that always vote republican bailed on him while still voting for the other republicans on the ballot. 

I know that some of my conservative friends and family that voted for him in 2016 didn't in 2020.  That certainly doesn't make them liberal.

 

Sure.  There are several people like you described in this country.  Where are they on this forum though?  There are very few people that take the conservative side of political discussions that are anti-Trump.  Rock and IK are the two that come to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

See this post: https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/776645-trump-2020-hq-the-great-place/?do=findComment&comment=23101149

This might help you understand how I feel about conservatives voting against conservative policy.

I don't think @rockaction is as conservative as you're making him out to be - I think he leans right, but not crazy right.  I could be wrong.

I haven't read the argument you guys are having, but I can comment quickly since you called. I was definitely a member of the American right that was influenced by free-market economics and social conservatism. In my later years, I began to adopt and concede more arguments from the left on anti-government interference issues and safety net issues. I still don't believe in positive rights (that one's existence gives one a "right" to things like food, shelter, etc.) but have conceded that the theoretical initial distribution of wealth was, at large, government interference itself and that it was a distribution of might, not right.  That's not a small thing, and may make me much less right than a lot of people in America.

But I was indeed a member of the right and worked in politics for about the most right-leaning think tank you can imagine, fully on board with most of its economic and social policy.

You could just say I'm getting older and seen a lot of ####, too. 

I pulled the lever for the GOP in 2004, if that dispels any doubt I once voted for the Republican Party. I just voted straight ticket. Now, I regret that choice thanks to brave whistle blowers like Edward Snowden, who remains a fugitive from justice wrongly, in my estimation. (I've also got a bit of Kook in me, always did, and that's why I identify as libertarian more than GOP. Always did.)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

That's a quick backtrack from you having a lot of conservative principles. 

It’s reasonable to think if someone is a centrist they have some beliefs that would fall left and some that fall right. Where did I claim I was a hardcore conservative? I do have conservative beliefs. I am morally against abortion. I’m for smaller government and balancing the budget. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

With all due respect, I think that's just an excuse.  I think a lot of people in here like to TELL themselves that, but in reality they're really liberal but trying to play the fence to give an APPEARENCE of being independent or unbiased.

You can still support conservative policies and NOT like your candidate because, what's the alternative?  Voting liberal?  Then, as a conservative, do you just blow off conservative policy for the next 4-8 years because you dislike the current guy and watch the left push forth more and more extreme policy?  Or, do you hold your nose and vote for Trump but still get tax cuts, THREE supreme court justices, immigration control and many more things?  It's silly, because a lot of liberals voted for Hillary and held their nose but conservatives can't do the same?

I think a lot of people don't buy into the idea that you either support Trump/Republicans or you support socialism. 4 years of Biden is unlikely to turn the US into Venezuela, but I guess we are about to find out.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

I think that just proves my point, IMO.

How so? I never ever presented myself as a conservative. I said I have conservative principles. I also have principles that are not in line with conservatives. I don’t tow either party line or give my full support to either side. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

It’s reasonable to think if someone is a centrist they have some beliefs that would fall left and some that fall right. Where did I claim I was a hardcore conservative? I do have conservative beliefs. I am morally against abortion. I’m for smaller government and balancing the budget. 

Your own words were you have conservative principles.  We are asking you what those are because you never take the conservative side of any discussion.  Feel free to link where you have though.  As I said I don't keep a notebook on posters and could easily be wrong here going off my memory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Your own words were you have conservative principles.  We are asking you what those are because you never take the conservative side of any discussion.  Feel free to link where you have though.  As I said I don't keep a notebook on posters and could easily be wrong here going off my memory

I don’t have a notebook of my own postings either. I don’t support the current Conservative party as I said so I doubt there’s much to see in recent years. I wish it was the party of Kasich, Romey, etc but there’s not really a place for that today. Or at least not anywhere I know of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, rickroll said:

I’m old enough to remember when conservatives liked free trade

I think that is where we’ve seen a major shift in the conservative position to adopting a more populist outlook on many things. RA could probably give a far better breakdown than I could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and im old enough to remember when they supported reducing the national debt and reducing national spending and supporting small g government instead of using federal powers at whim and ideas like supporting american innovation and the middle class instead of corporations but hey thats just me talkin take that to the bank brohans 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, SWC said:

and im old enough to remember when they supported reducing the national debt and reducing national spending and supporting small g government instead of using federal powers at whim and ideas like supporting american innovation and the middle class instead of corporations but hey thats just me talkin take that to the bank brohans 

I think Trump tried to help working class Americans with the trade fights with China and welfare he provided farmers. Not sure it was the right strategy or tactics but i think he was well intentioned. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:
41 minutes ago, SWC said:

and im old enough to remember when they supported reducing the national debt and reducing national spending and supporting small g government instead of using federal powers at whim and ideas like supporting american innovation and the middle class instead of corporations but hey thats just me talkin take that to the bank brohans 

I think Trump tried to help working class Americans with the trade fights with China and welfare he provided farmers. Not sure it was the right strategy or tactics but i think he was well intentioned. 

i guess we will never know what his intentions were but the sticking points in trumps trade negotiations with bejing were about forced technology transfers market access for us companies intellectual property theft and the chinese government subsidizing state owned companies over there i know he argued that his tariffs would bring jobs back but i have never heard a convincing argument how that was supposed to work and the sticking point items i listed above seem more about helping wealthy corporations than they do about helping the middle class and as of 2019 his trade wars cost the us 300000 jobs and 316 billion and devalued corporations by just under 2 trillion dollars per brookings institution and the american farm bureau said that farmers had lost the vast majority of what was once a 24 billion market in china due to retaliation to trumps tariffs by china so hey i dont believe he was ever out for the middle class or farmers but again that is just me talking take that to the bank bromigos 

Edited by SWC
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

The guy who used America First and favored a non-interventionist military policy?

You could have asked him if he was once the guy who once gave a speech at the border, pointed South and said "No way, Jose"?

That Pat Buchanan?

But I'm interrupting. Pat Buchanan's rhetoric, as @Gary Coal Manonce pointed out, got adopted by Ross Perot in '92 as hitting a remarkable touchstone and nerve with a number of unaffiliated voters and became sort of central to the Reform Party, of which Donald Trump was a member and candidate.

Trump is very much in the Buchanan mold. 

Edited by rockaction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat Buchanan was an economic populist before "economic populist" was a catch phrase.

Buchanan would have looked around and said, "Look at all these people with jobs. There are no manufacturing jobs anymore. And who's left not holding them? White people, that's who."

That's the type of thing Buchanan would have said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rockaction said:

Pat Buchanan was an economic populist before "economic populist" was a catch phrase.

Buchanan would have looked around and said, "Look at all these people with jobs. There are no manufacturing jobs anymore. And who's left not holding them? White people, that's who."

That's the type of thing Buchanan would have said.

 

Yep and being 18 from an a very white Catholic suburban school in a town whose wealth was entirely tied to the auto industry, it definitely made sense to me at the time. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I think Trump tried to help working class Americans with the trade fights with China and welfare he provided farmers. Not sure it was the right strategy or tactics but i think he was well intentioned. 

Agreed. I think there's a pretty significant portion of people who don't trust career bureaucrats from either party who've never had to make a payroll to make business type deals. 

"Business" is different when you literally print your own money. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

joehan the aid he provided farmers was required primarily because his trade war hurt them its money that should never have been needed to be spent and please please please explain how the bejing trade negotiations were about the middle class and i mean my middle class not the average fbg upper end middle class take that to the bank bromigos 

Edited by SWC
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Agreed. I think there's a pretty significant portion of people who don't trust career bureaucrats from either party who've never had to make a payroll to make business type deals. 

"Business" is different when you literally print your own money. 

Oh absolutely there are lots of people who think that way. Like most things, I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. There’s a lot of ways running a business just doesn’t translate to running the economy of a country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ilov80s said:

Oh absolutely there are lots of people who think that way. Like most things, I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. There’s a lot of ways running a business just doesn’t translate to running the economy of a country.

Of course. Way more complicated. That's just a general 40,000 foot view.

I have a friend who was considering going into business with another wealthy person I knew. The wealthy person was a trust fund guy that had never had the realities of real life business. His dad was always there to add more money to the account if it got tough. I advised my friend to pass on the opportunity as I just didn't think his potential partner had the real life experience to operate a real life business. Turns out I was completely right. 

The "business" of government can be like this in some ways. Not all of course. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

It’s like saying the sun came up today.This happens all the time from both sides. 

Maybe I wasn’t clear with my point. Blade was calling this place a liberal fantasy land. I was just pointing out there’s non-liberal people here too. The people laughing at that post were some of the non-left I was referring to. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Basically

:shrug:  Fair enough, I guess.  I would have thought that her previous advocacy of Q conspiracies plus her current theories on Dominion (GA governor was paid off, Hillary used it to defeat Bernie in 2016 but they paid Bernie off to keep quiet) would have trashed that notion, but to each their own.  Hypothetically speaking, what would it take for you conclude that she doesn't actually have anything?  Is it purely a time limit thing (e.g. by December 1)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Of course. Way more complicated. That's just a general 40,000 foot view.

I have a friend who was considering going into business with another wealthy person I knew. The wealthy person was a trust fund guy that had never had the realities of real life business. His dad was always there to add more money to the account if it got tough. I advised my friend to pass on the opportunity as I just didn't think his potential partner had the real life experience to operate a real life business. Turns out I was completely right. 

The "business" of government can be like this in some ways. Not all of course. 

 

Good points. Finding one person to manage the whole country seems insane actually. It made more sense in the 1700s but I still think we would be better off electing an executive board- an economy person defense person, foreign affairs person, etc.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

:shrug:  Fair enough, I guess.  I would have thought that her previous advocacy of Q conspiracies plus her current theories on Dominion (GA governor was paid off, Hillary used it to defeat Bernie in 2016 but they paid Bernie off to keep quiet) would have trashed that notion, but to each their own.  Hypothetically speaking, what would it take for you conclude that she doesn't actually have anything?  Is it purely a time limit thing (e.g. by December 1)?

She said she is hoping to file this week. I want to see what she has.

Have you already dismissed whatever she brings already? Don't you want to hear her out? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Max Power said:

She said she is hoping to file this week. I want to see what she has.

Have you already dismissed whatever she brings already? Don't you want to hear her out? 

I'll admit I'm curious, certainly.  That said, I believe if there was anything at all, it would have been released already.  The angles taken so far line up with team Trump's tradition of screaming something outrageous and when challenged to produce proof, instead screaming something even more outrageous.  Combined with some of the other happenings here, such as the vast differences between the public statements and court filings ("it's fraud" in public versus "this isn't a fraud case" in court) and the "she's part of elite strike force" versus two days later "she's not part of the team", Occam's Razor for me says it's overwhelmingly likely she has nothing.  More to the point, I think my overall attitude is "until you show me something, I will assume you have nothing" rather than the reverse.

Edited by Rich Conway
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I'll admit I'm curious, certainly.  That said, I believe if there was anything at all, it would have been released already.  The angles taken so far line up with team Trump's tradition of screaming something outrageous and when challenged to produce proof, instead scream something more outrageous.  Combined with some of the other happenings here, such as the vast differences between the public statements and court filings ("it's fraud" in public versus "this isn't a fraud case" in court) and the "she's part of elite strike force" versus two days later "she's not part of the team", Occam's Razor for me says it's overwhelmingly likely she has nothing.  More to the point, I think my overall attitude is "until you show me something, I will assume you have nothing" rather than the reverse.

I can understand being skeptical that she has anything. I just don't understand those who are outright dismissing anything she could bring.

Election integrity should concern us all. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I can understand being skeptical that she has anything. I just don't understand those who are outright dismissing anything she could bring.

Election integrity should concern us all. 

Agreed which is why it was so frustrating to see Congress not steps for election security before the election. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Good points. Finding one person to manage the whole country seems insane actually. It made more sense in the 1700s but I still think we would be better off electing an executive board- an economy person defense person, foreign affairs person, etc.

Not directly elected, but this sounds a lot like the Cabinet's role. I understand the model was somewhat broken under the current administration.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Max Power said:

She said she is hoping to file this week. I want to see what she has.

Have you already dismissed whatever she brings already? Don't you want to hear her out? 

For me personally, I have no issue with her bringing her case to court and making an argument.  I have no issue with Trump's team, in general, pursuing all legal avenues on this issue.  I think Trump's behavior is rather petty and unbecoming of the president, but that ship sailed long ago.

All of that said, it's painfully clear how this is likely going to proceed.  Powell will go through the court system, and her evidence will be some kind of vague half-baked conspiracy theory.  There will be a bunch of shaky, tenuous loose connections that don't lead anywhere, claims that make no real sense, but have just enough of a veneer of possibility that they will continue to fuel conspiracy theories going into the future.  Dominion voting, seizure of servers in Germany, rinse repeat.  It will be the legal equivalent of this.

The courts will throw out these claims for not being credible, or at the very least, not providing nearly enough evidence to overturn what is becoming a larger lead for Biden.  The narrative from right wing media will shift to the idea that Powell brought the goods and/or her claims have enough potential credibility to warrant a further investigation, but that the Democrats / RINOs / Deep State / Soros / <insert bogeyman> are blocking the truth.  Time will run out, and the narrative will become that the election was likely stolen from Trump.  Parler, Newsmax, and OAN - among others - will capitalize on this newfound opportunity and fan the flames.  Fringe folks will continue to parrot these talking points for years to come - not outright saying the election was stolen, but saying that we don't know whether the election was stolen because we don't have all of the evidence.  Powell will probably write a book, run the talk show circuit, etc., and become a fringe hero for years to come.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Doug B said:

Not directly elected, but this sounds a lot like the Cabinet's role. I understand the model was somewhat broken under the current administration.

Well yes like the cabinet. Maybe not quite as large but definitely elected. I would hope it might make issues and policy come more to the forefront during elections. That’s probably too optimistic though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Steve Tasker said:

For me personally, I have no issue with her bringing her case to court and making an argument.  I have no issue with Trump's team, in general, pursuing all legal avenues on this issue.  I think Trump's behavior is rather petty and unbecoming of the president, but that ship sailed long ago.

All of that said, it's painfully clear how this is likely going to proceed.  Powell will go through the court system, and her evidence will be some kind of vague half-baked conspiracy theory.  There will be a bunch of shaky, tenuous loose connections that don't lead anywhere, claims that make no real sense, but have just enough of a veneer of possibility that they will continue to fuel conspiracy theories going into the future.  Dominion voting, seizure of servers in Germany, rinse repeat.  It will be the legal equivalent of this.

The courts will throw out these claims for not being credible, or at the very least, not providing nearly enough evidence to overturn what is becoming a larger lead for Biden.  The narrative from right wing media will shift to the idea that Powell brought the goods and/or her claims have enough potential credibility to warrant a further investigation, but that the Democrats / RINOs / Deep State / Soros / <insert bogeyman> are blocking the truth.  Time will run out, and the narrative will become that the election was likely stolen from Trump.  Parler, Newsmax, and OAN - among others - will capitalize on this newfound opportunity and fan the flames.  Fringe folks will continue to parrot these talking points for years to come - not outright saying the election was stolen, but saying that we don't know whether the election was stolen because we don't have all of the evidence.  Powell will probably write a book, run the talk show circuit, etc., and become a fringe hero for years to come.

The problem with your prediction is it likely won't just be "the fringe" that believes there was something there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Steve Tasker said:

For me personally, I have no issue with her bringing her case to court and making an argument.  I have no issue with Trump's team, in general, pursuing all legal avenues on this issue.  I think Trump's behavior is rather petty and unbecoming of the president, but that ship sailed long ago.

All of that said, it's painfully clear how this is likely going to proceed.  Powell will go through the court system, and her evidence will be some kind of vague half-baked conspiracy theory.  There will be a bunch of shaky, tenuous loose connections that don't lead anywhere, claims that make no real sense, but have just enough of a veneer of possibility that they will continue to fuel conspiracy theories going into the future.  Dominion voting, seizure of servers in Germany, rinse repeat.  It will be the legal equivalent of this.

The courts will throw out these claims for not being credible, or at the very least, not providing nearly enough evidence to overturn what is becoming a larger lead for Biden.  The narrative from right wing media will shift to the idea that Powell brought the goods and/or her claims have enough potential credibility to warrant a further investigation, but that the Democrats / RINOs / Deep State / Soros / <insert bogeyman> are blocking the truth.  Time will run out, and the narrative will become that the election was likely stolen from Trump.  Parler, Newsmax, and OAN - among others - will capitalize on this newfound opportunity and fan the flames.  Fringe folks will continue to parrot these talking points for years to come - not outright saying the election was stolen, but saying that we don't know whether the election was stolen because we don't have all of the evidence.  Powell will probably write a book, run the talk show circuit, etc., and become a fringe hero for years to come.

I'll submit to the bolded.  However, here are the 3 main issues with their current actions

1)  They are withholding funds and access to the transition team.  That has never happened before and it is literally costing Americans their lives while we are at the height of a pandemic.  Allow the access/funds and if things are reversed, so be it.  That is beyond petty and is unAmerican and unpatriotic. 

2)  You can't claim fraud, fraud, fraud in the media and then when you show up to court admit to there not being fraud.  That is what is happening.

3)  Along with the two points above, the administration is sowing doubt into the election process that can't be undone.  Claiming the election was stolen is, once again, unAmerican and does a disservice to our country and all the work election officials did across this country in an awful situation as well as every single person that cast a vote.  If it turns out this is all a mirage (which it obviously looks like), that's irreversible damage.  And there should be penalties for doing what they've done.

  • Like 5
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

I'll submit to the bolded.  However, here are the 3 main issues with their current actions

1)  They are withholding funds and access to the transition team.  That has never happened before and it is literally costing Americans their lives while we are at the height of a pandemic.  Allow the access/funds and if things are reversed, so be it.  That is beyond petty and is unAmerican and unpatriotic. 

2)  You can't claim fraud, fraud, fraud in the media and then when you show up to court admit to there not being fraud.  That is what is happening.

3)  Along with the two points above, the administration is sowing doubt into the election process that can't be undone.  Claiming the election was stolen is, once again, unAmerican and does a disservice to our country and all the work election officials did across this country in an awful situation as well as every single person that cast a vote.  If it turns out this is all a mirage (which it obviously looks like), that's irreversible damage.  And there should be penalties for doing what they've done.

No disagreement on my part.  I'm just guessing what's gonna happen......it doesn't appear to be a very complicated playbook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To expand on Gianmarco's point 3:  This could really backfire for the republicans.  IF many voters who backed Trump buy into this faulty rhetoric that the election was stolen and the process is somehow broken, then these voters who believe this might not vote again.  Running the risk of losing a great deal of voters who backed you previously.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Max Power said:

I can understand being skeptical that she has anything. I just don't understand those who are outright dismissing anything she could bring.

Election integrity should concern us all. 

 

12 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

I'll submit to the bolded.  However, here are the 3 main issues with their current actions

1)  They are withholding funds and access to the transition team.  That has never happened before and it is literally costing Americans their lives while we are at the height of a pandemic.  Allow the access/funds and if things are reversed, so be it.  That is beyond petty and is unAmerican and unpatriotic. 

2)  You can't claim fraud, fraud, fraud in the media and then when you show up to court admit to there not being fraud.  That is what is happening.

3)  Along with the two points above, the administration is sowing doubt into the election process that can't be undone.  Claiming the election was stolen is, once again, unAmerican and does a disservice to our country and all the work election officials did across this country in an awful situation as well as every single person that cast a vote.  If it turns out this is all a mirage (which it obviously looks like), that's irreversible damage.  And there should be penalties for doing what they've done.

@Max Power - With respect to gianmarco's second two points above (#1 has nothing to do with Powell, best I can tell), this is where I also take serious issue with the way in which Powell has gone about her claims.  If it turns out she's full of it, the damage she's doing can't be undone.  To that end, I would support treason charges against both her and Giuliani for their actions if they can't back up their claims with real, actionable evidence.  Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

 

@Max Power - With respect to gianmarco's second two points above (#1 has nothing to do with Powell, best I can tell), this is where I also take serious issue with the way in which Powell has gone about her claims.  If it turns out she's full of it, the damage she's doing can't be undone.  To that end, I would support treason charges against both her and Giuliani for their actions if they can't back up their claims with real, actionable evidence.  Thoughts?

Filing frivolous lawsuits and engaging in dangerous political speech isn't treason that i know of.

We should be careful with the words we use when engaging Trump.  When you fight certain people on their level they drag you down and beat you with experience.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • knowledge dropper changed the title to TRUMP TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great and Positive Place

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...