And so it begins: open Civil War has broken out in the GOP

Darth Omar said:
I seem to have struck a nerve lol.

Here is fine. I know the origin of the term but i was using the term loosely [like how you use the term ‘insurrection’] to describe the way Trump supporters have been blamed for ‘extending the pandemic’, ‘killing people’ by not wearing masks and etc.

Myself and others have been listening to that here [and not just here] from some of your mates; it’s bullshit, I got tired of hearing it and so yeah, I called it a kind of blood libel.
Click to expand...
You would not use the term lightly if you truly understood its meaning. It just shows your ignorance.
 
Darth Omar said:
What stage is that lol?

Liz just got voted into irrelevance.
Click to expand...
I knew you were a closet Nationalist anti-Constitutionalist. Liz Cheney is still an elected Representative of Wyoming. Her political relevance is determined by the citizens of Wyoming, not Trump, the Party of Trump or assholes on anonymous political forums.

Like many other Republicans, the citizens of Wyoming will determine who they want to represent them in the 2022 election.

FWIW, as much as I'd like to see the Republicans provide a balance of power against the Democrats, the fact the Republican party is warring with its own members leads me to believe they are, once again, kneecapping themselves in an upcoming election.
 
Micawber said:
Islamic terrorists attack Russia repeatedly. Did Democrats do that too? Come on, the problem is global and they see us as the greatest devil, it's not a partisan issue.
I don't take issue with you thinking at times more guns than butter is proper, so do I at times. Just the way it fits into a broader brush narrative that isn't exactly true.
Click to expand...
No, but you are free to ignore history. Many Democrats do.

You're no different than the Trumpsters; anyone who posts the slightest disagreement automatically becomes your enemy and you go full throttle into attack mode against anyone who isn't toeing the Democrat line 100%.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Hoe brutaal! [Hint: that's Dutch too.]
Click to expand...

I didn't know oom was Dutch until I looked it up. You took the time to type non-responses twice, which is 10 times more time than it would have taken you to write the word "uncle".

Internet people are fucking weird.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello goat,



Here's how I look at it. We have this Constitution, our government structural outline. I can't think of a better national guidance, so I support the Constitution. It says we will have a president. It is a needed function. We are a nation with a lot of different viewpoints that we have to somehow consider when picking a president. We all have a chance to vote for who it is. Nobody has any individual power without convincing others to join in a political organization we call a party. We currently have 2 very powerful parties. Up until now, we individuals have had to pick one party or throw away our vote as a sort of protest statement. That forces us to choose either a symbolic gesture or select the party which best aligns with our views. Nobody gets everything they want, so it is ultimately a matter of compromise. We can demand all the perfection we like, but if we want to be realistic and help guide the nation, we have to go left or right. I choose left because it better represents the diversity I believe exists in this nation. I also voice my views and try to help steer the party of my choice, the Democratic Party.

Because of the situation where money buys so much power, both parties are showered with big money from wealthy corporations and individuals. We non-rich individuals are at a huge disadvantage compared to big corporations because we only live so many decades, and they are pretty much immortal, having far longer than us to accumulate wealth. There is a threshold of wealth, above which, great power ensues with the ability to throw big wealth around, most individuals never attain.

So yes, it is very frustrating. Most of us are stuck in this relatively powerless position. Virtually everyone who seeks office in one of the parties is bound to be showered with wealth. Presidents get a lot. It doesn't matter which party. And that's not always a bad thing. The more wealth a president gets, the more likely the lousy job might attract a good candidate. It is already true that talented individuals can earn a lot more wealth in the private sector. And who really wants to put themselves out there publicly for scrutiny of every time they walk up some steps, down a ramp, or take a drink of water. Most people prefer to have their life be private.

We have had some good presidents and some bad ones. Can you imagine how limited the pool of potential candidates might be if the position entailed all the public scrutiny, but no wealth? Well, if you think we have lousy choices now, that would make it worse.

I can't think of a president who was so virtuous and popular that they could decline all the money thrown at them, still get elected and have lots of political capital to be effective, do the job, and then end up only modestly wealthy. Perhaps Jimmy Carter comes to mind. We didn't appreciate him. We raked him over the coals. But if we actually examine his performance, he was pretty amazing. Vastly underappreciated.

America doesn't want that squeaky clean virtuous president you are envisioning. We are far too hung up on shallow stuff and instant gratification.

Are you looking for a leader who says things like: 'Human identity is no longer defined by what one does but rather by what one owns.' ?

We HAD one. He was rejected and replaced with a big money taking, pro-consumerism, 'what one owns' kind of leader.

Kind of a toughie, eh?

We never get to run our country with the presidents we would LIKE. We have to have our country with the presidents we GET. And we have nobody to blame but ourselves. We put 'em there! We can wish for idealism all we like, but we have to live in the real world as it is.
Click to expand...
Let's say there are only 2 viewpoints, optimist and pessimist. The optimist sees gray everywhere while the pessimist only sees gray where there is gray. You're an idealist by nature and I'm a skeptic by nature. You believe the constitution is real and essential, whereas I believe the constitution has been bastardized or is an utter sham. You say power corrupts and I say the corrupt crave power. You can't compromise self and neither can I. Are you with me so far?

The idiom knowledge is power is false. We have to use knowledge in direct action for it to become power. Complacency is the complicity government depends on. The divide is intentional. They see JPP and have nothing to worry about. A virtuous leader doesn't have to be president. Leaders are in opposition to the president and end up in prison or dead. Nelson Mandela and Julian Assange have the prison part covered but the leaders who ended up dead is too long to list.

Zoomers are ready for direct action. Zoomers are about to change the world. All we have to do is leave them alone yet support them the best we can.
 
Hello goat,

goat said:
Let's say there are only 2 viewpoints, optimist and pessimist. The optimist sees gray everywhere while the pessimist only sees gray where there is gray. You're an idealist by nature and I'm a skeptic by nature. You believe the constitution is real and essential, whereas I believe the constitution has been bastardized or is an utter sham. You say power corrupts and I say the corrupt crave power. You can't compromise self and neither can I. Are you with me so far?

The idiom knowledge is power is false. We have to use knowledge in direct action for it to become power. Complacency is the complicity government depends on. The divide is intentional. They see JPP and have nothing to worry about. A virtuous leader doesn't have to be president. Leaders are in opposition to the president and end up in prison or dead. Nelson Mandela and Julian Assange have the prison part covered but the leaders who ended up dead is too long to list.

Zoomers are ready for direct action. Zoomers are about to change the world. All we have to do is leave them alone yet support them the best we can.
Click to expand...

Every generation thinks it is going to change the world when they are young, and becomes complacent when old.

Zoomers will be no different.

Ahh, ya do what you can when you see the chance and take it. And you carve our some time for yourself. Then you die and vanish from existence.

Every generation changes the world; and some things never change.
 
Flash said:
"The Congress shall have Power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."
The Constitution says Congress has the power to tax and regulate the value of money. It does not provide for any mechanism for the citizens to vote to tax themselves.
Click to expand...

Again, you quote stuff out of context, AND you don't understand where the 'dollar' even comes from, AND you do not understand what money is.


The Constitution also says gold and silver are the only legal currencies in the United States.
The Constitution does not prevent people voting to tax themselves. Indeed, various town hall meetings did EXACTLY THAT.
The taxes the Constitution authorized Congress to lay and collect did NOT include income taxes (otherwise why the 16th amendment?), not even discussed authority to tax anything as nebulous as 'income' (until the 16th amendment was finally ratified in 1913. Since then, the IRS has spent the rest of the entire time trying to define what 'income' actually means.

Now since you decided to go into the wacky world of the dollar's history, a 'dollar' was named after the 'tahler'. It is a unit of weight. The standard set by the newly created federal government was 1/20th of an ounce of gold, 9/10ths pure. Today's FRN's have no gold or silver backing, nor do they represent anything to do with gold or silver. It is a fiat currency that is in and of itself unconstitutional.
 
Flash said:
We can influence taxes, but I do not think it is possible for citizens to vote to tax themselves to receive government services and those who voted against that taxation be denied from using those services.
Click to expand...
It is not only possible, it's been done.
Flash said:
Even currently, people still receive basic police and national defense protections even if they do not pay taxes.
Click to expand...
Everyone pays taxes.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello goat,



Every generation thinks it is going to change the world when they are young, and becomes complacent when old.

Zoomers will be no different.

Ahh, ya do what you can when you see the chance and take it. And you carve our some time for yourself. Then you die and vanish from existence.

Every generation changes the world; and some things never change.
Click to expand...
Boomers and Gen X did nothing to prepare a future of opportunities for their kids. The only thing they care about is their good paying job with a defense contractor and their house on the cul-de-sac. Now 1/2 of millennials and 3/4 of zoomers are stuck in the gig economy and refuse to return to work. They have no fiscal security and can't buy a house. My friends and family forced big pharma on their kids so now they blame these imaginary mental disorders on why their kids can't find or keep a job.

Suburbia is in denial and no offense, PoliTalker, but you are a perfect example. The anger in people is all over legacy media, yet most Americans refuse to accept what's causing such anger. I get tired of repeating myself yet I continue to explain that we're in a perfect storm for a systemic breakdown. America is a tinderbox that anything can cause to explode. I hope to live long enough to see how we come out the other side, and I'm pretty sure you are young enough to witness how the revolt is resolved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top