Jump to content

It’s Hammer Time


UT alum

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, UT alum said:

Communist?  I’ve never heard him or any other Democrat advocate the state own the means of production (land, labor, capital). Don’t throw that word around lightly. It has specific meaning.

Man, you want your “I’s” dotted and “T’s” crossed when dealing with a communist democrat. He is the epitome of a communist. Forcing mandates that he doesn’t follow himself, suing school districts for not teaching about homosexuality to 4th graders, showed support for blm, ridiculous gun laws that would lead to confiscation (that’s the main one for me). Are you implying that I shouldn’t speak ill of the man? Anyone who would defend him tells me all I need to know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

Last person sentenced to death for treason was in 1952 for real war crimes. Talking of killing presidents or anyone because a difference of political thoughts is crazy and dangerous. 
 

Its no logical debate to be had.

We have to stop trying to jail everyone we don't agree with politically......

I admit, Trump was part of the movement that got this rolling.....but he was a,so the victim of it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PAMFAM10 said:

Last person sentenced to death for treason was in 1952 for real war crimes. Talking of killing presidents or anyone because a difference of political thoughts is crazy and dangerous. 
 

Its no logical debate to be had.

Don’t twist my words. It’s not for a political difference, but for selling favors to our enemies. I’ll argue that till I die. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PAMFAM10 said:

Last person sentenced to death for treason was in 1952 for real war crimes. Talking of killing presidents or anyone because a difference of political thoughts is crazy and dangerous. 
 

Its no logical debate to be had.

I agree with your point about difference of political thought, but whether or not a line gets crossed in a deal with another country that knowingly harms America and it's citizens is always a worthy debate.

Everything should be debated, it's guaranteed in the First Amendment.  No one should ever be given power to decide what's worthy of debate.

I think it's absurd that we're debating what is a man or a woman, but I would never want to call to censor the discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I agree with your point about difference of political thought, but whether or not a line gets crossed in a deal with another country that knowingly harms America and it's citizens is always a worthy debate.

Everything should be debated, it's guaranteed in the First Amendment.  No one should ever be given power to decide what's worthy of debate.

I think it's absurd that we're debating what is a man or a woman, but I would never want to call to censor the discussion. 

I will …I’m not debating anyone on what’s female and what’s male. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

I will …I’m not debating anyone on what’s female and what’s male. 

And I feel the same way, but I wouldn't want to suppress, by law, someone else's right to debate the point.

If we go that route it will come to something that's important to each of us.

I'm talking about suppression of debate, not refusal of debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, UT alum said:

James Comer says?  I believe that’s called heresay, and is inadmissible as evidence. Show me some transactions. 

Did you even read the article?  It references specific transactions.

Of course, we all know you could have been watching him make the transactions and it still wouldn’t change your mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, UT alum said:

James Comer says?  I believe that’s called heresay, and is inadmissible as evidence. Show me some transactions. 

Hearsay was enough for two impeachments, of which you were 100% behind saying, “We got him this time”! You’re such a stickler for details when it comes to law, why aren’t you that way with everyone? It’s the American way. We all have rights and protection against wrongful charges. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, baddog said:

Hearsay was enough for two impeachments, of which you were 100% behind saying, “We got him this time”! You’re such a stickler for details when it comes to law, why aren’t you that way with everyone? It’s the American way. We all have rights and protection against wrongful charges. 

@UT alum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, UT alum said:

James Comer says?  I believe that’s called heresay, and is inadmissible as evidence. Show me some transactions. 

The whole discussion is about specific transactions. Lol

Like Baddog said, you don’t care about specifics when it comes to Trump. 😂

Of course when you live in 🤡🌎 that’s to be expected. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Unwoke said:

 

What’s being totally ignored about how bad it is, is that Obama knew. You can bank on it. 
 

 

Not only knew, but he is part of it, just like Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, and probably lots of others. Trump was about to blow it wide open, just like what’s happening now. Illegal gains made from insider info, climate change, infrastructure (Schumer with his fist pump), send it to Ukraine and have it laundered, then stuff it in an offshore account. Of course all leftys deny any wrongdoing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,968
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    yielder
    Newest Member
    yielder
    Joined



  • Posts

    • Trump walks to the beat of a different drummer so he could very likely pick a person that is on no one’s radar. Going by typical political logic, assuming that a VP pick might bring 0.5%-1% votes, who should it be? A half to one percent is not much but in a potentially razor thin election, a couple of thousand votes in a state could decide the presidency. Biden won AZ by just over 10,000 votes. The most recent Beaumont mayoral election, where almost no one votes, had over 15,000 votes cast. In GA it was 12,000 votes and Biden did not even get 50%. In WI it was 20,000 and again Biden didn’t get to 50%.  There are other states in that area of percent point difference. How important? If any two AZ, GA and WI flip, Trump would have won. So while the VP probably never matters…. can it this time? I think that it could. What then does the VP pick bring to the table? FL and SC were both won by Trump in 2020 so a favored son vote for Rubio or Scott won’t help Trump. Both are in a fairly comfortable position within the conservative community so they will neither hurt nor help with strong conservative voters.  What about the few fence riders that could and likely will determine the election by either sticking with Biden or switching from the last election? What about the people who did not vote in the last election, but may come out to vote in this one just to support the VP candidate? Could Scott sway a percentage point or two from Black support? Could Rubio help draw a percentage point or two of Hispanic support? Possibly on both counts. Like I already mentioned, they won’t help in their own states because Trump already won those in 2020. I personally think that either would actually do a good job as president (although VP picks are about the politics of being elected and not the “best” possible president) and might be the difference in a few votes but a few votes more is all that is needed.  Or…. My outlier, Tulsi Gabbard.  She had some decent support when are ran for the presidency in the Democrat primary. Could some people follow her because they support her and not necessarily the party? I’m sure that’s true for all candidates. Could she bring female support? As a strong mentally and physically person and a member of the military who was deployed into a combat zone into Iraq. Then she went to OCS and became an officer, then deployed to Kuwait. Can that military history, including deployment into a war swing some votes? As of late, she has been on a one person tirade against Biden and the Democrats. Let’s remember that Ronald Reagan was a Democrat and so was Texas governor John Connally. Connally was not only a Democrat governor in Texas but also Secretary of the Navy under JFK. Both ended up switching to the Republican Party so there is a fairly strong history of former Democrats switching parties and being successful, all the way up to the presidency. Gabbard is a pretty fiery campaigner and doesn’t mince her words. She would really be a thorn in the Democrats’ hopes and has the inside knowledge of the party. Could she potentially swing more votes than Scott or Rubio? I think so. But…. I don’t think that Trump would pick her and I’m not sure that she would accept if offered. Her odds of being Trump's pick are at about 1%.  Scott or Rubio at about 10%. Trump being Trump, will choose someone who no one has ever heard of. 
    • So biden's a creepy old pedophile after all...shocker! But that's where the smart votes are landing.
    • You’re quibbling over the word “most”.  I agree that the UK is our most important military ally but we have overwhelming other support from Europe through NATO.   What other support do we have in the Middle East?  What are the “most” important issues? Military strength or intelligence that might head off the need for military action? It’s certainly debatable.  I honestly wouldn’t argue with any points on which if the most critical to our interests. I am sure that people can make valid arguments from different points of view. Military? The UK. Middle East intelligence? Israel.  As far as Israel, SmashMouth said that they “may very well be” the most important. ”May be” is not an adamant statement but a suggestion. They might be… depending on what the discussion is about. Worrying about the word “most” (especially “may be”) seems to be the definition of trivial. 
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...