ActualCornHusker

I think you're reading what you want to read instead of what I'm typing. Kind of your MO. I know what you're referring to though - yesterday when I said something along the lines of "I don't really feel like wasting my evening discussing this" perhaps it meant I wanted to spend the evening with my wife rather than try to have a pointless debate that won't make one iota of difference anyways - not that I was avoiding the debate because I'm being inauthentic or something...

Nobody is defending Trump's personal baggage here. You're reading what you want to read so you can claim that people who don't agree with your views lock-step are evil so you don't have to have a genuine conversation. It's what the left does every time.

WTF are you talking about?

I agree, as we saw in the spring game. Nelson and Tannor wrecked our tackles with those guys out.

There are literal VIDEOS of officers welcoming people into the Capitol building.... And a federal judge agreed on that point... LINK

I refuse to stand in line with ANY politician, so not sure what you're talking about. I'll acknowledge when ANY politician does something I like and criticize them when they do something that I view as contrary to the interest of Americans. You should try it

How about instead I propose this: You acknowledge that the FBI, Capitol Police, and Pelosi set up the EXACT circumstances that would allow what happened to happen, then provoked the incident and invited protestors into the building - people who are now being held in solitary and having their civil rights violated And then I'll place blame on Trump for it. If that's not an admission you'll make, there's no point in even talking about it because your perception of the event has been saturated by leftist garbage talking points.

I am probably in the minority here, but I'm far more concerned about DL than OL. I thought DL was thin but had potential to be decent, but once Rogers hit the portal, I flipped to the urgent side on that one.

Not what I said, and your characterization on multiple points skews reality. Oh no... LOL

I'm saying the way it's been characterized in the press is nowhere close to reality... To be clear, anybody who assaulted or killed someone that day should be held accountable, including the cop that shot the unarmed girl, I forget her name. If those people actually wanted to overturn the election and were serious about it, they would have brought weapons. Most of them were just dummies that walked right into a trap that Democrats, the FBI, and even some Republicans such as the turtle wanted them to fall into so they could use it as political leverage for the next 4 years. The main error those people made was thinking that the Capitol is the people's house. It's not. It's the criminals lair.

My explanation would sound similar regarding the excessive spending. It's probably the #1 reason why I didn't vote for him in 2020

Once again, I really don't want to spend my evening dispelling this nonsense

Regarding the bolded: You don't feel like that's what Trump was elected to do?.... Basically his entire campaign made it perfectly clear that he was going to get rid of as much Obama policy as possible, and that's what the voters elected him to do... And IMO he didn't do NEAR enough...

There's so much here embedded within your last 2 posts that I really don't feel like spending time going back and forth about, so I'll just point this out: I think it's hilarious how Hillary lost and has claimed ever since that Trump's victory in 2016 was illegitimate, and that complete fabrication was accepted as fact and reported on with glee non-stop for much of the entirety of Trump's presidency, even after it was shown to be BS. Then Trump makes a similar claim in 2020 about why he lost, and all of a sudden the corporate media, govt officials, and anti-trumpers are concerned about "disinformation" and "democracy being in peril" What's MORE hilarious: there were MORE Democrats who objected to certifying MORE states for the 2016 election than Republicans did in 2020. Somehow their concern for "democracy" were irrelevant just 4 years earlier. But y'know, facts and feelings and such....

sheesh...

I can understand your sentiment about Trump, but to vote for Biden... He's corrupt and immoral in every way they claimed Trump was with hordes of evidence to prove it, and isn't even sentient. That's the part I really do not understand...

Oh yeah, was just skimming and wanted to authentically reply to this: The reason Trump should step aside is because the Republican party has a rising leader in Desantis that is wildly popular that is FAR better at politics than Trump, has the fortitude not to be pushed around that the Rep base finds appealing about Trump but does so with tact, and doesn't have the personal baggage that Trump has. But of course 2024 will be another run for Trump's ego...

Exactly. Edit to add: On your point about voting for Trump, I was in the same place. But Democrats are utterly unworthy of votes in my view so there was absolutely no way in hell I was checking the box for Biden.

I actually think Andrew Yang's idea of rank-choice voting would be far better than the system we have now. It could allow a 3rd party (maybe 4th & 5th) to really shake things up.

I'm sorry, I literally have no idea what you're even arguing. I'm not sure what the root of your question is - I'd say that happens somewhat right now. Within the 2 parties you have various views on different topics, Yang being the most obvious example. After the debates especially, there was no way I was voting for Trump or Biden, so I checked the box for Jorgensen although I'm not an enormous fan. I just couldn't bring myself to check the box for the "lesser of 2 evils."

Since you're so concerned about personal scandal in politicians, here's a fun one for you. Our depends-wearing president's daughter has excerpts in her diary saying that her father took showers with her that "were probably inappropriate" and that she admits to being sexually abused as a child. You should check that out.

Yeah I think that's a good example. I also think there are countless examples I could point to where the "unintended consequences" of policy (I use quotations because you could argue in many cases that the politicians are getting the EXACT outcome they wanted or hoped for) completely outweighed any problem that it was trying to solve. *The best example is the prohibition of marjuana and many of the sentencing laws around other drugs. Do I wish that no one would ever do drugs? Yes. But when the consequence of that policy is that tons of innocent people (which consists heavily of black and brown populations) end up serving long jail sentences when they've not harmed anyone else, that's a horrendous failure in policy. *TARP & Covid relief - We were told in each of these instances that the world economy was going to collapse if nothing was done, and so we HAD to print trillions of dollars to bail out the banks, airlines, performing arts centers, etc. Then what happened with the money? A HUGE portion of it was used to facilitate corruption and fraud. Those are just a couple off the top of my head, but you could go back and find countless examples of government setting out to solve a problem but making it worse and wasting billions or trillions of dollars. And do the politicians or bureaucrats ever get hit with the impact of those failures? No, the average American citizen does, and still somehow tens of millions of people become convinced that we should give MORE money to the most corrupt, wasteful, abusive organization in the world because that's somehow virtuous. So TLDR version is: Government is inherently evil, and the types of people who seek positions of power within the government are almost always the types people you'd LEAST want to have that power. So no, I don't think that politicians, voters, bureaucrats, or the people at the top levels of any agency within government have the mental ability to make major policy decisions that benefit the populace without HORRENDOUS consequences.

Are you showing an example that I didn't call anyone a name? And even if I had, are you really going to just reply with crocodile tears about it? You're literally not arguing with anyone or making any points - you've devolved into an argument on semantics, and I'm not interested.

I don't believe I said the word psychopath nor called anyone that - I referred to the psychosis / psychotic rage that possesses never-trumpers - a psychosis that I don't see as a wide-spread problem within Trump loyalists, or at least nowhere near as pervasive.

I think your 1st paragraph pretty much nails why both parties are complete and total a$$. I also agree completely with your 2nd paragraph, but that begs the question: do you feel that the populace at-large, or the people who get elected, are both informed enough to form policy positions on major issues, or intelligent enough to understand the consequences of those decisions (both intended and unintended)?