gatomontes99

No. I'm just not believing the left's lies. How many unnamed sources said something about Trump that turned out to be a lie? Hundreds. It's the same old playbook. Believe the lies if you want. You'll just be disappointed later.

I'd say don't tell them. But they are like smokers. They know what they are doing is hurting themselves, but they can't stop. They are addicted.

7 unnamed employees. Meanwhile dozens of named employees state they never saw this happen. https://www.newsweek.com/pete-hegseth-fox-news-colleagues-speak-out-1995427 All you are doing is repeating a lie. And you don't care. You'll repeat it over and over until the next lie comes along.

1876 was almost exactly like 2020. In 1876, Florida Republicans certified the Republican when the Democrat won. The Democrat sent alternate electors and congress chose to accept the Democrat. In 2020, the Trump campaign contended that the votes in Atlanta, Philadelphia, Arizona and Detroit were tainted with fraudulent votes. The Trump campaign had one problem, they were challenging votes after they had been counted. When we count votes we deidentify them. A ballot comes in, it is verified and then deidentified. If you find that a set of ballots are fraudulent after that, you can't determine who those ballots benefited. From a judge's perspective, the votes could have been for any candidate. How can the judge invalidate votes if the judge has no idea who benefited? That's why the alternate electors scheme failed. This last election, the Trump team (via the RNC) prepositioned lawyers in those key cities to challenge fraudulent votes. As a result, Trump performed far better in those cities and won the election. The fraud is real and the RNC has the formula to stop it.

It's been evidenced ad nauseam.

Except for Gore and JFK.

There. While it is true 38 states ratified the amendment, several did it after the deadline and 5 rescinded. That leaves the amendment 8 states short. If there is a need, let's have congress propose it again and vote on it again. I presume that 46 years ago this amendment was helpful. I'm not sure it is needed today. But, it is possible, I guess, that it might be needed in the future.

Oh please. The best you guys could come up with is that he had drinks with his friends to decompress. That tells me all I need to know.

https://youtube.com/shorts/sXlo9fOu7gQ?si=uEs6gHZqgbLdzY9c

Don't be stupid.

The irony here is they had two trans dudes in office and were ok with it. But somehow Pete taking that photo is offensive? How? Why? More proof that they don't have a logical bone in their body. They behave 1000% on emotion.

And that it eliminates rights. The two cannot exist in the same space.

Scandinavia what? Britain, Germany, Greece, Spain and France are all European countries, that doesn't make them the same. Hell, try closer to home. The US, Canada, Mexico, Bhamas and Cuba are nothing alike. What are you trying to say? That some country or collection of countries in the Scandinavian region somehow figured out how to control evey aspect of someone's life while preserving rights. Because that's not possible. That is like saying you had ice tea on the surface of the sun. It can't happen. Even if you want to make that play, it is based on the lie that Scandinavia countries are socialist: The simple fact is that Scandinavian countries are not, by any reasonable definition, socialist.

Joe may as well have declared the moon to be made of blue cheese.

Sorry Libbies, your assasination attempts just got harder.

Do not forget that democracy must be imposed on the people.

Yes, you know nothing? Wow.

That comment is so incredibly stùpid. Do you know nothing about China?

I've done that since day one. I did that in this thread. Yall won't listen. Now I'm showing you Smith is the truly corrupt person. Yall won't listen. Just like Jack Smith has a pattern, yall have a pattern.

Open your eyes: McDonnell wasn't the only one: 1 is meaningless 2 could be a coincidence 3 is a pattern.

Why? He's systematically using the legal system to harm political opponents. Other than murder, what could be worse?

The SCOTUS recognized qualified immunity for the POTUS. As they said, if the President is tasked with it then it isn't and can't be illegal. Jack Smith was trying to prosecute Trump for doing his job. When that didn't work, he tried to claim that he wasn't doing his job. That's a rebranding of the same acts...official acts. It's also the same thing Jack Smith got rejected by SCOTUS in the McDonnell case. Even if Smith had managed to get a conviction it would have been thrown out a second time by SCOTUS. Jack Smith is the single worst abuser of the legal system we have ever seen. He should lose all law licenses he owns and barred from all offices. In addition, he should be jailed for what he did.

Before I start, we have to understand what money represents. All money is earned by time. If you work, you get paid for units of time. If you invest you get paid for change over time. If you loan you get paid over time. Therefor, every dollar represents a portion of your life. The more taxes you pay, the more of your life you lose to the government. The more subsidies you receive, the more of someone else's life you have taken. Two major issues with this. First, there is no success without the possibility of failure. Second, by increasing the buying power of the poor, you will increase the cost of essential goods by increasing demands and therefore you will not change the circumstances of those that are poor. At the same time, the increased taxes will cause the middle class to have less money and they'll now be effectively poor. There is no free. All government paid health care follows the same path. It starts by painting with a broad brush to entice voters to vote away their right to life. After they've done that, demand for services will exceed supply (like a candy store that gives away candy to kids). So the government, incapable of increasing supply due to constraints of money and or personell, will start wait lists that will prioritize based on government priorities. Low pay for professionals will cause more lack of supply. Eventually, care will be difficult to impossible to obtain and constraints will be numerous. At that point, the right to live will be obviously lost and can't be regained without force. How did they vote away their right to life? Let's start with the definition of right: power or privilege held by the general public [Cornell]. If the individual controls the 6 Ws (who, what, when, where, why and how) of an act, they hold the right. If the government controls the 6 Ws, then it is a privilege or entitlement. This is laughable. The people that are rich will be controlling the government. They'll use the tax dollars that the government collects to line their pockets. So, yes, millionaires will be ecstatic. You won't be. Your 50% marginal rate will be devastating. There will be massive inequality in socialism. Inequity will be minimal. That is a huge difference. If there is equality, there is inequity. Inequity exists because outcomes for equal and free people will vary. Socialism doesn't change behavior. It attempts to force behavior. That is the big folly of socialism. Greed, selfishness, etc will always exist regardless of how authoritarian the government is. If anything, socialism will make greed worse. Because resources will be harder to gain and gaining resources will mean taking from others, greed and selfishness will flourish. This is how socialism always fails. Why work when you get the same stuff if you are lazy? Why be honest when the only way to get ahead is to steal? This is the most naive point yet. Who are these angels that will protect our interests? They won't be greedy? Obviously it's only greedy if it's the other guy. Let's talk about reality. If a "business" doesn't have to be profitable why would they have to have quality? In capitalistic economies, poor products are rejected by the consumers because they have limited funds and won't waste it on products that don't meet their needs or wants. In socialism, profit isn't necessary so they provide whatever crap they want to and you, as the consumer, have no choice but to accept it. Then why is China the dirtiest country in the world? Private insurance isn't a hidden tax. That is an insane stretch. Health insurance is a cost. There are far more efficient, captalist ways to obtain health care. We should explore those and retain our right to live.

Like enslaving the populous. Socialism cannot coexist with individual rights.

Lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol Oh my gawsh! Lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol It figures that the first person you pick is an expressed socialist...aka authoritarian.