User

Of course, I can compare the two. I just did. You just don't like to acknowledge the facts here, that both Clinton and Gore engaged in the same petty game Trump did and does. All you can do is try to downplay it. So, they didn't do it as much as Trump... LOL, that is your big sticking point? OK. And those were just the comments from them, nevermind many Democrats all still push the same crap. Democrats spent most of the Trump presidency trying to destroy him with the bogus Russia collusion nonsense, with good ol Adam Schiff coming out like every week lying to the media saying this was the big week where all the evidence he had was coming to light. There is no "formal" concession process that any of them did that Trump did not. What, you think calling someone from the Hotel room in the middle of the night after they counted most of the votes to say you "concede" is a "formality?" Again, for all practical purposes of concession to the Presidency, Trump left. Trump left peacefully. He walked right out the door, got on the helicopter, and flew away. He publically announced his administration was transferring over to Bidens. Here you go again, don't believe me, believe the media who reported it: "President Trump concedes, condemns supporters who rioted" This was reported on by several major media organizations like CNN, all calling it a concession. Don't believe me, believe them. No, January 6th was not peaceful, but Trumps inauguration was not peaceful either. Should I blame all the Democrats for that? Trump did not call for violence on the 6th. I understand just fine. I explained it to you. They already had recounts, what Gore wanted was to hand recount certain ballots a certain way that most favored him. I noticed you ignored that he also tried to have his lawyers throw out votes from the Military as well. It was all an orchestrated scheme to push any legal theory they could that would benefit them the most, to steal the election. The Suprme Court ruling was not that Jeb can count anyway he pleases. It was not even Jeb... the sitting Governor doesn't control the elections. That is the Secretary of State. Florida law was followed on Machine recounts, not just however Jeb wanted. Where do you even get this nonsense? This was the primary holding: "Despite violating the Fourteenth Amendment by using disparate vote-counting procedures in different counties, Florida did not need to complete a recount in the 2000 presidential election because it could not be accomplished in a constitutionally valid way within the time limit set by federal law for resolving these controversies." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/ I already pointed this out before: The only way Gore wins is if they hand recount under the most favorable conditions for him in "interpreting" how someone meant to vote because they were too stupid to check their ballots to see that they fully pushed out the chad or they were too stupid to only make one choice for President. You know what works and doesn't rely on biased human "interpretations?" The machines. They counted the ballots how they were designed to be counted. You punched the hole or you didn't.

No, I don't think we can survive the meteor on a starship with current technologies. My best advice is to dig into a mountain side deep enough and fortify your position there with enough provisions to live out the rest of your natural life.

I thought the point was fairly obvious. Are you not planning for the meteor?!

If we are hit by a giant meteor, the Earth may be destroyed as we know it, including most, if not all, human life. You should spend your time worrying about this, and start planning now!

So, we have established now, without a doubt, that it is you who is demeaning women here. What's funny is that you are trying too hard to twist what Butker said and outright makeup crap he didn't say to try to paint him as someone doing what it is you are actually doing. Women who stay home to invest in their family are also going beyond what a woman with a career is doing. They spend more time with their children, more time building a home for their family, they too are doing more and going beyond. You are the one demeaning women here now.

This can't be a fact... it has never happened yet. Its a prediction based on information you choose to focus on. The "fact" (pun intended) that you call it a fact only shows your own bias here. This is not a fact, its speculation on your part at best, not backed up by what we know happened. This is your buying into some phony pro-Russia narrative that they wanted peace and if only Johnson hadn't blown up the deal. The problem is that this isn't what happened at all. If Ukraine was out of military personnel, Russia would have already conquered them. What you likely meant to say is that they are out of reserves or maybe out of recruits... who knows, but those are for more accurate. Either way, you are wrong. Ukraine is actively working to replenish their ranks and has been doing so for months now, but they are certainly behind the curve to some degree. It is not perfect, they are struggling, but it certainly is not "out of military personnel" as you claim. Your so-called "facts" are anything but...

Dude, you are back to not answering my questions or responding to all of what I post again. You have as much influence on world events with Russia here as you do with Ukraine or US policy. And to that point, you can support US/Ukraine policy that puts more pressure on Russia to stop the war if that is what you are really after here. That is my point in saying this, that you are ignoring Russia and the policy you do support plays into what Russia wants... why, it is almost as if you support Russia here and you do cheer for them to win. So again, what are your motives? Why do you continue to push inaccurate assertions and things that might as well be Russian propaganda? I watched the video... was there any particular point you wanted to discuss beyond the fact these guys are saying the same thing you are? I did not call you a puppet or anyone a puppet. What reality is it you think I am ignoring here?

So, you have no evidence of any plot to challenge the coming election with violence. You are speculating at best. You still think Gore won, so... what is your point? Gore and Clinton both still go around saying they won. And? Gore, Clinton, you, and a ton of Democrats still don't accept the results of elections. What is your point?

You think being a Homemaker is just being knocked up folding laundry? Look at you insulting all those women out there who invest time into their family to raise their children by reducing it to being knocked up and folding laundry. That it is below other ambitions that you say are "beyond" it. That this would not be part of her dreams. Shame on you.

Once again, here you are making up things he never said.

No, you are merely arguing that their why is a "just" why, it is still subverting the law. Yes, just as our Constitution gives the President pardon authority....

He is no more subverting than what you support with sanctuary cities. Why they have the policy is irrelevant to the fact that the law is being subverted. They are aiding people in breaking the law. Yes, much of it is political spite.

I see... so subverting law is now based on if you think its in the public interest or not. I don't think letting illegal immigrants murder our citizens and kill them is in the public interest... that aside, this boils down to you are OK with breaking some laws that you don't like and support enabling that law breaking. You are just fine with subverting the law after all.

The extent of your "intelligent" contributions here were to say he pooped on their special day. When you feel like you want to add more, beyond the petty childish nonsense, let me know.

Glad you agree then. Trump isn't subverting anything either.

Since you did not pay attention, I will just repost what I already did: That I don't agree with you doesn't make me dishonest. Go ahead and quote him then, make your case.

That I don't agree with you doesn't make me dishonest. Go ahead and quote him them, make your case. Clearly they do not run their course, here you are brining up the "gay cake" again. You brought it up only in as much as you could accuse me of being dishonest. Now you claim conversations run their course. If you think I am dishonest, prove it. Don't play these pathetic childish games after the fact. And my not agreeing with yours and others absurd attempts to "interpret" what Butker meant here or to put words in his mouth he didn't actually say to make your points doesn't make me dishonest.

No, you are the ones playing the word games instead of focusing on what Butker actually said. Butker did not say having two sources of income was bad or wrong. It is more rewarding to be at home to invest more time with your family. Do you have a family? Do you enjoy your kids being in daycare all day instead of with one of you? Instead of being out in the world with their mom, being with strangers? Nevermind, daycare is terribly expensive, and many folks that do work 2 jobs still end up pay a large chunk of whatever $$$ they make extra to daycare anyway. Again, Butker did not make any absolute comments that all women should stay home and nor was he bad mouthing those that did not. No more than I am presuming you are here badmouthing all stay-at-home moms. Are you? Are you demonizing them?

Where is my dishonesty here? Be specific. I am the one who has repeatedly demanded others to focus on what he actually said, not what they think he meant. Of course, I won. You ran away, and here you are accusing me of dishonesty with no specific examples based on those discussions you ran away from. You have to resort to these childish petty tactics like this after the fact instead of being courageous enough to deal with your inability to respond to me then.

There was never a first rebellion. No, it is not clear he will try anything like that in November if he loses again. It is the Democrats who spent the first 2 years of Bidens term setting the stage for claiming the election will be stolen.

I hope his rhetoric is mostly hyperbole, and he will focus his pardons on only the misdemeanor cases and the ones where the DOJ has vindictively gone after people for what is trespassing. And he leaves the violent people in prison.

And to the point here... you cheer on the subversion of law this way... so don't complain when Trump uses his legal authority to pardon people.

Right... just like Clinton continued to call him an illegitimate President too, went on to say the election was stolen, just like you and others still think Al Gore really won. Trump left office peacefully. He walked out and made a transition to the Biden team. Trump organized a peaceful protest. He told them to march peacefully. He told them to stop several times. Democrats, including our sitting VP, funded the bail for the rioters. They made no distinction between peaceful protestors or those engaged in violence, rioting, looting, vandalism, or arson. They backed their bail funds. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House at the time, called Law Enforcement a bunch of kidnappers. Their rhetoric was just as incendiary if not more so in driving the BLM violence. No, she went on to say it was stolen election. Calling President Trump illegitimate is the same thing. They had already recounted several times with the machines. The issue was that there were the hanging chads, pregnant chads... the recounts Gore wanted to do were based on "interpreting" someone's intent through hand recounts and saying that if a chad was indented, well, obviously that was meant to be a vote for Gore... and he wanted to selectively recount ballots that would favor him the most. And yet... Gore still went on to say he should have been President after it was all over. Gore tried to steal the election as much as Trump did, to play legal theories that the Supreme Court ruled as violating the law. He also had his lawyers try to challenge all the overseas military ballots they could to try to skew the vote in his favor. Lets not pretend like Gore was not pushing whatever legal boundaries he could get away with here. And no, Gore would not have won. The Ballots were already recounted, what he wanted was to interpret the intent of voters when they did not clearly mark their ballots. Only if you hand recount the problem ballots and give Gore the 100% most favorable "interpretation" of presuming someone voted for him, even though they didn't clearly mark their ballots, would he have maybe have won, and that was not even what Gore was asking for in his recount challenge. Analysis of Florida Ballots Proves Favorable to Bush https://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/04/us/analysis-of-florida-ballots-proves-favorable-to-bush.html

OMG, the hypocritical irony. You guys are pushing your phony outrage here over accusing him of telling women what to do things he didn't say... and here YOU ARE doing similar. How is it you presume to speak for "every woman" in that audience? LOL

No, I am just pointing out your bad arguments for not using the words he said. Even Maria Shriver is making a strawman argument. He never told all women to be homemakers. And being a Homemaker is not a luxury that only rich people can afford. It is something many families make sacrifices for because they want to invest more into their home and children. To his target audience, a Catholic Private school... that is a huge part of the Catholic culture as well. Remember, he was not giving some public speech to every woman in the world either, it was a private commencement speech to a Catholic audience.