Hodad

This is a poor quality post with no information in it. Please do better.

Ah, the intellectual rigor we've come to expect from you: random images of dubious provenance substituted for an actual argument.

^^This does not track logically. The Democratic machine has nothing to do with Republican candor. If candidates want to repudiate Trump they can simply do it. They can simply BE honest. There are a lot of Republicans in office and prominently elsewhere in the party that don't support Trump--who recognize what a, vile, ugly disaster he was from the first moment he rode down that escalator to announce. Most of them are simply cowards, with the exception of a few outliers like Romney and Cheney. They are afraid that Trump's deplorables will punish them--and they are right to be afraid. But that's why it takes courage to live by one's convictions.

Registered independent here. You just think I'm a partisan because the Republicans lost their collective minds when a Black man was elected president and set a trajectory that lead so far off rails that they are entirely unpalatable at this point. I have no interest in the politics of spite and there will be no chance of a Republican earning my vote unless they thoroughly and vocally repudiate the disaster that is Trumpism.

Deluge, meet Deluge. ^^ This is what happens when people have no principles or intellectual standards. They will simply say whatever is convenient in the moment.

You are correct. No one has to "prove" their accusations. If people choose not to support their accusations, that is their prerogative. The natural consequence of that is that we will think the accuser shallow, stupid, crazy etc. depending on how wild the claims are. Multiple investigations at the local and state levels and 60 court cases laughed out of court, and not a bit of evidence to support wide scale election fraud. So in the case of election deniers, both stupid and crazy would apply.?

?That "article" is an opinion piece, poorly reasoned and poorly written. He's as welcome to his opinion as you are to yours. And I'm welcome to call you both out with my opinion. That's how opinions work. If you want to talk facts, let's talk about facts. Like the attempted coup and the extortion for campaign aid. You know, facts.

Jeebus. I feel like this is a pure glimpse inside the festering conspiracy cesspool that is your mind. This is what it looks like inside. Just a cacophony of toxic hate 24/7. Unplug from the internet and go seek help.

That is an asinine article. Joe Biden is as establishment as they come. Vanilla. Very old vanilla. Get back to me when we come anywhere near impeachable abuses of power, let alone an attempted coup. Maybe he'll call Zelensky and threaten to withhold military aid from Ukraine unless Zelensky slanders his Republican opponent. ?

That's right, Trump is not a dictator. Thanks to Mike Pence we narrowly avoided a coup attempt and we don't have to figure out what Trump actually is in a post-democratic United States. Rather, in a still democratic United States, we know exactly what he is: a one-term mistake now under criminal indictment.

I'm not sure he can explain it slower. You're simply wrong. "Delegates" refers to the already elected congresspeople from each state and the "state delegation" refers to the entire set from each state. Whether that is one (AK, WY, etc.) or 52 (CA), each delegation gets a single vote. You should just absorb the information, learn and move on. Indeed, the contingent election would have been a foregone conclusion that overturned the will of the voters entirely. That's why team Trump tried so hard to make it happen. They weren't "challenging" the election. They were trying to steal it outright through means they knew to be illegal.

A number of the Jan 6 rioters have admitted that they were wrong and expressed remorse. Are some of them self-serving statements? Probably. But there are also men and women of honor who have recognized the gravity of what they did. Honor is a totally foreign concept to WestCanMan, so this will fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes).

Someone needs to up his dosage. I see your still flogging your magic TV that can show the future. Amazing that you haven't yet won the lottery!

FYI, Trump was drone striking at 3x the Obama rate. They just made it policy not to report on casualties.

Have you been over at WestCanMan's house watching his TV that shows the future? No fair, the rest of us have to wait until the "manifesto" is released.

Political, it's risky, for sure, but principles should rise above politics. The one thing in your post that I really disagree with is that Trump will get top lawyers. So far, he has been TERRIBLE at picking lawyers. They are carney barkers like Trump, but that sideshow atmosphere has not been rewarded in court.

Why? There is not evidence that the vaccines have any impact on fertility. COVID, on the other hand, can. Their fertility is more secure having been vaccinated.

Actually, I assumed that was the case because Connally was and Barnes was part of his contingent on the mission. My mistake. Conservative Texas Democrat.

No, no. Remember how your colleagues held you down and injected you against your will? You were forced! Or, perhaps, we are all subject to conditional employment and really conditional participation in society. Wear your hard-hat, get your license, show up sober, dress appropriately etc. -- You're correct. Nobody was forced to vaccinate. It did become conditional for some things and was a matter of convenience for others. In exactly the same way that vaccines are conditional for school in some areas or for travel to certain countries etc. If one wishes to refuse to participate in community protection through vaccination, they sometimes have to figure out some alternate arrangements. Those are choices people make.

You get caught lying (again and again and again), and when I call you out on your lies, citing your own words you call me a liar and put me on ignore? ? That all tracks, actually. Bullies are inherently cowardly and are all the same online and off. None of them have a backbone. Will be nice, actually. I can correct your lies without watching you desperately weasel afterward. ?

Yeah, I think individual libraries make their own calls in most cases-- they set a policy and stick to it as well as they can. That Toronto speaker seems like a tough sell to me, but I don't know what their policies are. Kirk Cameron (pivoting back) was allowed at several libraries. He Trumped it right up though, claiming all sorts of things about record attendance blah blah. The library had to issue a statement correcting his claims. Sigh. No good deed goes unpunished in the culture war.

This is an old chestnut for folks arguing against the social safety net, but I've yet to see any reasonable explanation for a mechanism that creates dependency. Presumably, there was a time in your life in which you made a lot less money, but could still meet your basic needs for food and shelter. Did achieving that basic, subsistence lifestyle demotivate you? Did you have any less ambition or less desire to elevate your status or acquire more luxury? Did you want less? Or, alternatively, you could quit your job now and move down into poverty, meeting your basic needs with assistance, but little else. Is there any appeal to that? Is it a struggle to avoid doing making that choice and what keeps you from it? Those are largely rhetorical questions and I'm pretty confident that I know the answers. They're probably the same for you as they are for me. So my question is why do you think the majority of people would have different answers? People with little or no income may be dependent on aid to meet basic needs, but I don't see that meeting those needs creates further dependency? And I certainly don't see how it would discourage or demotivate people who want more. For anyone who wants more, it's a safe platform from which to pursue goals.

Maybe. But also I think the generalization is correct. For example, a Christian might share the message "Love everybody." But "Love everybody." isn't a religious message. No one would object to that. But if the message is "Love everybody because Jesus is the savior and he said to love everybody." that's becomes a religious message and is inherently exclusionary to other faiths and non-faiths. The distinction I've been making is between messenger and message. Inclusivity means anyone from any faith or non-faith can come and participate in appropriate activities comfortably. It doesn't mean that anybody can use public space to produce any content they want, particularly when there's a hostility baked into religious messaging. Religions can get coexist at a superficial level, but underlying the civility they are not pluralistic and are inherently hostile to one another. If someone says that Jesus is the only path to salvation and eternal happiness that sounds fine enough, but the other edge of that sword is that it is telling all the Jews, Muslims- whatever -that their beliefs are wrong, inferior and that their souls are damned unless they convert. So not exactly nice dinnertime conversation. -- Best to just stop at "Love everybody."

Agreed, not all. Of course, many do think that, but unanimity isn't really the point. The point was that if you "let them all participate" or specifically to let them all proselytize or sermonize as part of public programming it doesn't create an inclusive environment. Instead, they really just take turns being exclusive. After all, they all claim to be the one true faith. Far better, I think, to keep proselytizing, sermonizing etc. out of the public spaces as a matter of policy. Freedom of religion really does mean freedom from religion too. And, FWIW, most religions and sects don't want equal access, they want exclusive or dominant access to public support and spaces. The Church of Satan is rather successful in demonstrating that point at every opportunity. Every time they show up to claim their share of equal access to public support the religious folks change opinions very quickly, lol.

1. YES YOU DID claim that the MFF is specifically for rioters, you pathological nutbag. This is the exact quote from your post: "You know that Kamala Harris publicly called for people to support a fund which was specifically for getting rioters out of jail." ,The "absolute indisputable fact" is that you are a shameless liar. Kamala Harris never said anything about bailing out rioters, yet you claim she did. That is lying. She tweeted about the MFF to support protesters. You don't get to just change her words and invent new meanings for them. Some pathological liars are very smart. You, on the other hand, are as dumb as they come. Like Trump and his "largest crowd ever" and "no rain fell during the inauguration" lies, you just can't help yourself from telling the dumbest, most casually disproven lies. Of course many protesters were arrested for non-violent offenses. MOST of them were arrested for non-violent offenses. For example: In Minneapolis, the city where Floyd was killed, local police arrested 570 people in the ensuing protests — nearly 90 percent of them from the metro area, with the vast majority being charged with curfew violations. Now, according to city and county prosecutors, all but 44 cases have been dropped. There were people "thrown in jail" for a huge variety on nonviolent "crimes" that had nothing to do with rioting. Many peaceful protestors. Occasionally people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time or tried to run away from the "kettling." Here is your challenge: "If you think that they were against the violence and the rioting, I'd like you to find some examples of Dem politicians or MSM pundits excoriating rioters for the destruction of communities" It took about 30 seconds to find quotes of not just randoms, but the POTUS and V-POTUS both condemning violence and rioting in strong language. Hard to see and hear what politicians say when you have your head up your ass. This would be more fun if you were smarter or made even remotely plausible claims. Oy. No one was aware of his "violent crime" until 6 days after the shooting. I posted proof for you--literal screenshots of FOX and CNN breaking the news on the day the police eventually released the robbery video. Yet you still maintain that your (apparently magic) TV showed you the robbery on the same day as the murder. -- You see what I mean, the same stupid, easily disproven pathological lies. You just can't help yourself. The media reported Brown's friends and family describing him as a "gentle giant." No one in the MSM knew Brown to characterize him one way or another, though you're welcome to produce a link of someone directly characterizing him rather than reporting. And when the robbery video became available they reported that perspective as well. Again, hard to know that with your head up your ass. Great, if you can agree that it's unsolved by unknown shooters then you can stop yammering about "a 16 yr old black kid was killed by Chazz police" and whining about how the media didn't cover it. You posted a damn article from the Seattle Times. Hey look, the media covering it! You go on to say: There's no heart-warming/heart-wrenching backstory about "a gentle, happy child" or a sad story of a "troubled, impoverished youth..." in either story to stir up emotions. But you link to an "MSM" article that says this: "Antonio Mays liked video games and rapping and playing with his 7-year-old sister, his family said. He didn’t even own a cellphone. His family called him Little Tony, or Rico." -- “He told my brother he was going to Seattle to be a part of history and protest,” his uncle, Michael Mays, told The Seattle Times, describing the note. “And he just wanted us to be proud of him.” “He was into mischief like any other kid, but he was respectful, he listened, he was just into mischief,” You can't even keep from unraveling your own lies. Jeebus, I'm not sure you could make this any easier. The moral of the story, as always, is that you live in a completely delusional fantasy world and whenever anyone pokes holes in it with facts or evidence you start lying your ass off to spackle over the cracks and then call names and tantrum like a toddler. Grow up. Get a life. Try being a decent, honest person.