Biden's America

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Interesting.  Almost everyone that was in his previous administration disagrees with you.....Including the military leaders.

Let’s game this out…..how exactly is/was he a threat to our continued Democracy?   
 

or I can ask it this way…..How will Trump turn us into a Russia or North Korea type country?  
 

Or I could ask, how will Trump destroy our political norms like getting rid of the EC and changing how we elect a President, or packing SCOTUS with more Justices to get his preferred outcome, or maybe getting rid of the filibuster so a very very slim majority can have near absolute power in governing?   How will he accomplish those things???

[Lorewarn]

https://www.project2025.org/

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Let’s game this out…..how exactly is/was he a threat to our continued Democracy?   
 

or I can ask it this way…..How will Trump turn us into a Russia or North Korea type country?  
 

Or I could ask, how will Trump destroy our political norms like getting rid of the EC and changing how we elect a President, or packing SCOTUS with more Justices to get his preferred outcome, or maybe getting rid of the filibuster so a very very slim majority can have near absolute power in governing?   How will he accomplish those things???

Typically, this is a response I would say from someone who hasn't been paying attention.  With you, it's someone who just doesn't want to admit reality.

 

It's been spelled out for everyone to see very clearly and you refuse to accept it.  I get it, sometimes it's hard to admit the person you voted for is a disaster...and would be even a worse disaster if elected again.

 

Almost every single person who worked with him in the last time he was President agrees with me....not you.  Many Republican elected officials, both past and present, agree with me....not you.

 

Not one past President or Vice President agrees with you.

 

I'm not going to waste my time spelling it out to you...yet again.  It's plain as day to anyone with their eyes open.

[Guy Chamberlin]

51 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I asked yesterday,  it what will he be able to do with those empty threats?   If the people  trump is apparently going to target did not break the law what do they have to worry about.  Unless you are telling me lawfare happens. 

 

Who says lawfare doesn't happen? 

 

If you're going by Donald Trump's 40 year history of this, he will launch lawsuits that he knows are unwinnable, but nevertheless cost his enemies and accusers time and resources while buying himself victimhood and distraction. He will try to use the resources available to a President, and the 2025 Project you pretend isn't a thing would give much broader power to lower level government appointees to make people's lives unhappy, even while residing within the letter of the law. 

 

How empty are the threats? I'm not sure, but many sensible Republicans are afraid to challenge Trump --- like physically afraid -- and several elected Rs have surrendered their seats to MAGA candidates. If one of Trump's previous "empty" threats, like refusing to verify the 2020 election, turn into J6, why do you suppose something like that or worse wouldn't happen again? You seem to suggest that if Trump fails to kill democracy, it proves there's no big problem. But raping, assaulting, or stealing from Democracy is a crime, too. You should be doing more to stop this man.

[Archy1221]

29 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm not going to waste my time spelling it out to you.

I knew you wouldn’t because you can’t.   It’s ok to use your rhetoric, but it’s also ok for people to call out the rhetoric as the BS that it is.

 

Trump may get elected and he may or may not be a good President over the course of those 4 years.   But make no mistake we will have a functioning Democracy when his four years are up.  Just as we will when Kamala’s 4 or 8 years are up.  

[Dr. Strangelove]

6 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I knew you wouldn’t because you can’t.   It’s ok to use your rhetoric, but it’s also ok for people to call out the rhetoric as the BS that it is.

 

Trump may get elected and he may or may not be a good President over the course of those 4 years.   But make no mistake we will have a functioning Democracy when his four years are up.  Just as we will when Kamala’s 4 or 8 years are up.  

While I agree with the overall sentiment - Democracy will exist in the United States in 4 or 8 years... you seem extremely okay with a widespread scheme to undermine a free and fair election. This scheme involved alternate slates of electors in 7 states with the involvement of large swaths of the Republican Party.

 

This plot is currently being investigated for criminality by the Department of Justice, features a guilty plea by Kenneth Chesebro (The alternate electors original proponent) on conspiracy charges related to Georgia election racketeering.  There have been numerous individuals charged with felonies (like the Arizona and Nevada Republican Party Chair's) related to conspiracy to defraud the United States, ultimately leading to the *CHECKS NOTES* A CRIMINAL INDICTMENT of Trump on charges of Conspiracy to defraud the United States, Conspiracy against Rights, and Obstruction.

 

Just because he tried to undermine an election and failed to do so - because the institutions of the United States are strong - it doesn't mean that his failure the first time around doesn't mean the Republican Party, which enabled all of this, aren't going to seek to weaken the institutions in the future.

 

I get that you're a Republican at heart, but your defense of the indefensible is inexcusable. I know the realization that Republicans are the baddies takes time to process, and I genuinely think you're a well meaning person, but c'mon man. Take off the blinders.

[Lorewarn]

26 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

But make no mistake we will have a functioning Democracy when his four years are up.  Just as we will when Kamala’s 4 or 8 years are up.  

 

 

What sort of plausible scenarios (forget about Trump entirely) would exist that would put you in a place of actually believing that American democracy is in legitimate danger?

[BigRedBuster]

41 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I knew you wouldn’t because you can’t.   It’s ok to use your rhetoric, but it’s also ok for people to call out the rhetoric as the BS that it is.

 

Trump may get elected and he may or may not be a good President over the course of those 4 years.   But make no mistake we will have a functioning Democracy when his four years are up.  Just as we will when Kamala’s 4 or 8 years are up.  

And you seem like you think you are so much smarter and more knowledgeable on the subject than just about everyone who was in his administration, every past President and Vice President, military leaders, both Democrat and REPUBLICAN elected officials, intelligence agency leaders...etc.

 

It's out there.  I've had this conversation with you before spelling it out.  It's not that "I can't".  It's that you refuse to see it after it's been told to you so many times.

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

How empty are the threats? I'm not sure, but many sensible Republicans are afraid to challenge Trump --- like physically afraid -- and several elected Rs have surrendered their seats to MAGA candidates. If one of Trump's previous "empty" threats, like refusing to verify the 2020 election, turn into J6, why do you suppose something like that or worse wouldn't happen again? You seem to suggest that if Trump fails to kill democracy, it proves there's no big problem. But raping, assaulting, or stealing from Democracy is a crime, too. You should be doing more to stop this man.

What has changed for you after 4 years of Trump (non shutdown related) that makes your life or our government less Democratic than before?   

What specifically did his administration do to rape, assault, or steal from Democracy so I have a baseline of what you are talking about.  I get the Jan 6 riots and everyone here wants to be constantly afraid that we were just a whisker away from being Trumpistan, but I’d rather live in reality.   It was a terrible terrible day which we all agree.  

 

 

[Loe Doesnt Know]

33 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I knew you wouldn’t because you can’t.   It’s ok to use your rhetoric, but it’s also ok for people to call out the rhetoric as the BS that it is.

 

Trump may get elected and he may or may not be a good President over the course of those 4 years.   But make no mistake we will have a functioning Democracy when his four years are up.  Just as we will when Kamala’s 4 or 8 years are up.  

 

Actually, everyone i talk to admits we haven't had a democracy since the Bush Sr. term. Instead what we have is a one sided, bias media and a polarization of every issue. So much so that congress on both sides is refusing to work across the isles to actually accomplish anything. Furthermore, we have complete election breakdown.. Starting with Gore/Bush and yes, we'll see more issues in November. Then, we have debate hosts prepping their (the host's) candidate and making a mockery of the whole. In 2016 the fox debate (Megyn Kelly) was despicable towards trump and so the next debate they allowed Trump to interject his opinions every time hillary attempted to discuss her position. 2020 debates were completely useless and the only debate we've had this year is Kamala wearing voice activated earings and the ABC hosts being slammed by every media out from their own ABC to MSNBC to Fox about the shady display and disrespect to professionalism shown by the two moderators.... 

 

Democracy? Show me in the last 10 years where the majority (remember majority rules in a democracy) actually won? A handful maybe, the Abortion Law change, maybe you can say the electorate (though often it's not in line with the popular). Regardless, we've become a country where the minority (and I'm not speaking about one's heritage) opinions are governing the country. Climate Change, most americans agree the climate has changed but doubt the immense effect of carbon as constantly promoted by fear mongers. Electric vehicles, Cow Farts, defining a man and a woman (ffs it's biological) and the list goes on.... and on.. 

 

I want a president that can say to congress "everything" is on the table including term limits for all and an open ear regardless of party affiliation. I'm tired of this polorization. This constant discussion of a divided country. The fear mongering of a civil war. (ffs, we are educated and our fellow american's regardless of race/religion/self identification are accepting of each other and are above hate) I want a president that isn't a party hardliner... Be moderate and work to accomplish commonsense agenda's and congress needs to standup to this out of control media and tell them to gtfo of politics or face consequences of the freedom to "peacefully" assemble laws. (fps, Journalists need to return to journalism and end the biased BS.)

 

Trump should not be running

Harris is unconstitutional (she was not elected but appointed. that is not democracy) 

 

Honestly, I'd rather this election be deemed unconstitutional post election. Biden remain in office for another year and both parties go back to the drawing board, have honest and fair debates, demecraticly elect 2 candidates (might end up being Harris vs Trump) and the winner is in office for 3 years because as it is now... imo, neither Trump or Harris are choices I am comfortable voting for but sadly, right now, as vet and a person who believes in democracy. I refuse to even consider Harris. I refuse to vote for someone appointed over someone elected. Won't do it! Can't do it!

[Archy1221]

49 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

you seem extremely okay with a widespread scheme to undermine a free and fair election. This scheme involved alternate slates of electors in 7 states with the involvement of large swaths of the Republican Party.

I’m not ok with it and I’ve only said it multiple times that I won’t vote for Trump because of how he approached the riots once they began and that he can’t get over the 2020 election.  I was fine with whatever legal challenge he wanted to bring.  That’s the system.   Once he lost those, he needed to give up and he didn’t.   

[knapplc]

17 minutes ago, Loe Doesnt Know said:

I refuse to even consider Harris.

 

Harris' nomination is completely legal. Political parties are not the government. They are private entities, and they can nominate anyone they want. 

 

The primaries are window dressing. When the parties meet at their conventions, the delegates are free to vote for whomever they choose. They are not bound by primary votes.

 

Harris is the nominee because she secured enough delegates at the convention. That's perfectly legal. Full stop.

 

Your refusal to even consider her based on your flawed understanding of the political process says more about you than anything. 

[Lorewarn]

9 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Harris' nomination is completely legal. Political parties are not the government. They are private entities, and they can nominate anyone they want. 

 

The primaries are window dressing. When the parties meet at their conventions, the delegates are free to vote for whomever they choose. They are not bound by primary votes.

 

Harris is the nominee because she secured enough delegates at the convention. That's perfectly legal. Full stop.

 

Your refusal to even consider her based on your flawed understanding of the political process says more about you than anything. 

 

 

To be fair to him (even though that wall of text is 95% absolute bananas town), he didn't say it was illegal and he didn't say that he refused to consider her because of illegality. He refused because she wasn't democratically selected, which is true.

[Moiraine]

11 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

To be fair to him (even though that wall of text is 95% absolute bananas town), he didn't say it was illegal and he didn't say that he refused to consider her because of illegality. He refused because she wasn't democratically selected, which is true.

 

 

He said “Harris is unconstitutional.” The constitution is the law of the land. How is he not saying her nomination is illegal?

 

 

[Lorewarn]

4 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

He said “Harris is unconstitutional.” The constitution is the law of the land. How is he not saying her nomination is illegal?

 

 

 

 

Gotta be honest, I missed that part. Something about the voice activated earrings dulled my senses.